Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

Looks like I was right. Compare my analysis (below) to this:

Apart from the Cameron video, the main mention of Origin Into Schools on the Living Waters home page consists of an article titled "Origin of Species Campaign Enrages Atheists." The article announces that Comfort has stopped answering questions about the project because of an "angry backlash" and quotes with obvious relish opponents (including Dawkins) who recommend ripping Comfort's introduction out of the book, as well as a few who suggest burning it. The site invites comments, the majority of which come from critics, then cherry-picks the most inflammatory to illustrate how "filled with hatred" atheists are.

If the true intention of Origin Into Schools is to introduce college students to creationism, Living Waters seems remarkably uninterested in finding out whether this has been achieved. It dedicates itself to presenting Comfort as assaulted by mouth-frothing atheists who advocate book-burning (just like Hitler!) but who haven't got the balls to put their ideology to the test of a public debate. Not coincidentally, another regular feature of the Living Waters site is a department called "Christian Persecution News."

What all this drama is actually designed to produce is donations, which will "expand this give-away to many more universities." The greater the heathen rage against Comfort and projects like Origin Into Schools, the deeper the faithful will dig into their pockets to support him. It's also worth noting that the more Comfort grandstands for creationism, the more essential Dawkins' combative response appears to be. (Dawkins, like Comfort, has a new book out this fall.) In a culture war that more and more comes to resemble the bouts of the World Wrestling Federation, the two have formed a relationship that could even be called symbiotic. Nature is full of bizarre survival mechanisms, as Darwin himself could surely have testified, but politics produces even stranger ones every day.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2009/11/23/origin_into_schools/print.html

Mike
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nucacids
  To: John Walley ; Dehler, Bernie ; asa
  Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

  Hi John,

  Please take my opinions with a grain of salt, as I am not an ASA member. I simply see no evidence for thinking “people like Ray Comfort would think twice about their publicity stunts if they knew their was someone in the Body that would call them out on it. Our lack of voice only empowers them.” I think someone like Comfort needs all the attention he can get to make his publicity stunt financially rewarding. Even Nick Matzke is starting to smell something fishy here:

  http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/comfortcameron.html

  Here’s how I see it. Comfort, and those who follow him, don’t really care what the ASA thinks, but adding a bit about how the community of “theistic evilutionists” has joined forces with Richard Dawkins would probably get a nice mention in one of his fund-raising letters that gets sent out under the radar. Official denouncements are usually spun as meaning that the denouncers are getting nervous and scared. What kills the fundraising efforts if when everyone ignores the antics and Comfort can’t play martyr or revolutionary.

  But if the ASA wants to give him some more free publicity, and, more significantly, add to his stature as someone who deserves a response from a community of scientists, I certainly am in no position to veto that. But Comfort really is a small fish who does seem to know how to push buttons to elevate his presence.

  Mike

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: John Walley
    To: Nucacids ; Dehler, Bernie ; asa
    Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:00 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

    I think a Christian equivalent organization of the NCSE that was comprised of qualified scientists/theologians to defend orthodox Christian theology and science when it is being threatened in the culture would be a very worthy goal and a great service to all. ASA should at least release a policy statement on these type histrionics to counter the perception that this speaks for Christians in general like Andrew suggested.

    Ted you were quite proud of the fact the other day that the ASA refuted Morris in the 60's and caused them to part company with you as you should be and I suggest the same type of policing of integrity of Christian faith and practice would be as useful and as valuable still today.

    We denounce ID for embarrassing us in the courts by being too cozy with YEC's and not defending real science, but that shows the opportunity and the need for it. I think we mostly avoid this because we don't take offensive positions on issues and the spotlight is not on us for the most part, but we are ignoring so much negative behavior that brings reproach on Christ and the church.

    The ASA is the only Christian body that I know of that is qualified and capable of raising the standard of truth in the modern day science/faith culture wars and that is something that is desperately needed. People like Ray Comfort would think twice about their publicity stunts if they knew their was someone in the Body that would call them out on it. Our lack of voice only empowers them.

    There are likely many other evangelical pastors and lay leaders who would like to find a way out from under the thumb of the fundamentalist mafia and would like to have a truly integrated science/faith worldview but I don't think they know such a possibility exists. By us releasing rebuttals to things like this and providing some leadership it would give the press and media a third opinion to include in all the hype besides just the creationists and the atheists.

    I don't see why this concept would be that controversial. Even RTB released a statement renouncing Expelled and their divisive tactics when it came out and I think that was very responsible of them. I think releasing ASA public position statements on things like this would do wonders for the organization and church and more importantly, the lost and lonely people out there seeking the Truth.

    Thanks

    John
     

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
    To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 7:11:22 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

    Hi Bernie,

    “If this stuff isn’t repudiated by the Christian community, then it will serve as a self-mockery of the Christian community in the eyes of intellectuals. Dawkins will pick up on it, and Eugenie has also been doing battles with Comfort lately, so this will be more fodder for her arsenal.”

    True intellectuals do not peddle in stereotypes and guilt-by-association. Any “intellectual” trying to extrapolate Comfort’s antics to the larger Christian community would be a pseudo-intellectual.

    As for Comfort, I never heard of him until his stupid banana argument went viral in cyberspace. I even poked fun of it here:

    http://telicthoughts.com/the-orange/

    You might want to consider that Comfort is engaged in a *publicity stunt* to draw more attention to himself and you are asking the ASA to assist him in these regards. The best thing to do when dealing with an attention-seeking publicity hound is to ignore him.

    Besides, if the ASA is supposed to police such antics among people who are not members of the ASA, then where do you draw the line? Must the ASA comment on every future publicity stunt from any new creationist clamoring for attention?

    Mike

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dehler, Bernie
      To: asa
      Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:19 PM
      Subject: RE: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

      “They also didn't cite that Collins disagrees with them concerning chimpanzees in the Language of God.”

      RE: quoting Collins as pro-ID and then implying he is anti-evolution when he is actually pro-evolution.

      This sounds like a trick out of the playbook of the ‘Expelled” movie For example, in “expelled” they interview McGrath (on an unrelated topic), making/promoting the assumption that McGrath is pro-ID and anti-evolution. McGrath actually wrote negative comments about ID and is pro-evolution as far as I can tell.

      If this stuff isn’t repudiated by the Christian community, then it will serve as a self-mockery of the Christian community in the eyes of intellectuals. Dawkins will pick up on it, and Eugenie has also been doing battles with Comfort lately, so this will be more fodder for her arsenal.

      …Bernie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
      Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:40 PM
      To: Dehler, Bernie
      Cc: asa; Randy Isaac
      Subject: Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

      You can see the pdf of it already:

      http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

      Page 10 of the introduction cited Francis Collins from the following UK Times article that marked the release of The Language of God. (Randy, it might be interesting to get Dr. Collins' reaction given they also rehash the faux Nazi connection on pp. 36-9 which I believe caused a falling out between him and Coral Ridge.)

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

      They quoted this as follows:

        To ponder how DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by sheer accident is indeed amazing, and has even led some to consider the possibility of design. Based on his study of DNA, the director of the U.S. National human Genome research Institute concluded there must be a God. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome, believes it provides a rational basis for a Creator:

      “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

      After quoting Collins, Comfort says this:

        DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell— design which could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means. In every other area of our world, we recognize that information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. with our present-day knowledge of DNA, this presents a formidable challenge to Darwinian evolution.

      But somehow strangely -- shall we say by chance? -- they didn't quote the following from the Times article a few paragraphs down:

        “I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.

      The next section goes onto the next page and attempts to explain away the similarities between the chimpanzee and human genomes using material from Answers in Genesis. They also didn't cite that Collins disagrees with them concerning chimpanzees in the Language of God.

        A further example of this close relationship stems from examination of the anatomy of human and chimpanzee chromosomes. Chromosomes are the visible manifestation of the DNA genome, apparent in the light microscope at the time that a cell divides. Each chromosome contains hundreds of genes. Figure 5.3 shows a comparison of the chromosomes between a human and a chimpanzee. The human has twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, but the chimpanzee has twenty-four. The difference in the chromosome number appears to be a consequence of two ancestral chromosomes having fused together to generate human chromosome 2. That the human must be a fusion is further suggested by studying the gorilla and orangutan — they each have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes, looking much like the chimp.

        Recently, with the determination of the complete sequence of the human genome, it has become possible to look at the precise location where this proposed chromosomal fusion must have happened. The sequence at that location — along the long arm of chromosome 2 — is truly remarkable. Without getting into the technical details, let me just say that special sequences occur at the tips of all primate chromosomes. Those sequences generally do not occur elsewhere. But they are found right where evolution would have predicted, in the middle of our fused second chromosome. The fusion that occurred as we evolved from the apes has left its DNA imprint here. It is very difficult to understand this observation without postulating a common ancestor.

      Collins also showed in Figure 5.1 how similar the inferred DNA sequences of mammalian species with what Darwin had in his 1837 notebook for the tree of life. That would have been interesting in an introduction to Origin but again not there.

      Ray Comfort has every right to publish an introduction to a public domain work but at least it shouldn't be YEC's "greatest hits". It ends with a Gospel presentation. I don't believe it's going to be terribly effective and it's the tarnishing of the Gospel that I have the greatest concern.

      Rich Blinne

      Member ASA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09 19:42:00

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09 19:42:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09 19:42:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 00:14:42 2009