Video: The atheist’s nightmare
posted at 9:22 am on May 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
This isn’t another gratuitous religion-versus-atheism post, I promise. It’s actually prep for the big showdown on Wednesday at ABCNews.com, where the two men below will square off with two people from that stupid group that encourages people to tape themselves saying “I deny the Holy Spirit” in a debate on whether God exists. Many of you will have seen this clip before; those who haven’t will recognize the guy on the right as Kirk “Growing Pains” Cameron. The dude with the banana is Ray Comfort, a minister from New Zealand who says he’s going to prove, scientifically, on Wednesday that God exists. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the “proof” might run along these very lines, which, needless to say, will do the cause of belief no favors.
I’m tempted to accuse ABC of sandbagging Christians by tapping these two to make the case for religion, but according to the CNS article it was Comfort and Cameron who approached them with the idea, not vice versa. But fear not: if it’s deck-stacking you want, check out whom the New York Public Library enlisted to tangle with Christopher Hitchens on the same subject tonight in NYC.
What I wouldn’t give to be there.
There are plenty of critiques of this at YouTube if you’re interested, most notably here and, in a rare YouTube appearance, since-banned atheist Nick Gisburne pondering the wonders of the pineapple.
For the record, my own personal nightmares have less to do with bananas than peanut butter.
I’ll have the ABC link for you Wednesday so you can watch it live. They’ll be airing parts of it that night on Nightline too, but I suspect it’ll be all over YouTube by then.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Behold krydor’s “fish with limbs”. The red part is the actual fossil parts they’ve found. I don’t find the partial jawbone of some animal very supportive of limb evolution. But I’m just an idiot creationist who doesn’t understand all this sciency stuff.
jdpaz on May 8, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Rose & PRC,
This is sort of the reason that I dropped out of similar debates 10 years ago. We are discussing two different aspects of the human condition, those being faith and reason.
God of the Gaps means just what is going on here. Incomplete? Must be God, now I no longer have to look. Phew, what a relief. Every year, the fossil record gets better and more complete, every transitional fossil that shows up evokes demands of other transitional fossils. We’re looking at over 4 billion years of life on this planet. Modern man has been here for about 100,000.
I’m not willing to insert a diety into the fossil record in all the places it is incomplete. I really don’t think that people of faith should insert a deity, either. Means god messed up his creations a couple of times and erased the evidence.
There is no evidence to prove God. The logical default position is that there is no higher being. I’m not about to go into a church and demand that they erase Genesis because it is inconsistent with reality. I don’t want creationists walking into my children’s biology class and saying the science is wrong because it contradicts theology.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 2:09 PM
That, it appears, is the real question.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 2:15 PM
It is wrong to teach evolution as an absolute when it is not. All people want is for science to be honest about what it knows and what it doesn’t know instead of making things up just to fill in the gaps.
Rose on May 8, 2007 at 2:17 PM
I’d be happy with one somewhat believable transitional set of fossils…and an explanation of undirected abiogenesis.
jdpaz on May 8, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Science is not religiously neutral.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Krydor,
Thanks for making the effort, but I’m sorry, nowhere in your examples do I see any fossil evidence showing the developmental stages of a perfectly round ball in a perfectly round joint. – I’m afraid we won’t be meeting behind
the 7-11 anytine soon.
Just as a side note, where does the Ceolocanth fit into your little list of ancient fish? Oh, that’s right, the little fella that was once heralded as proof of fish-to-amph. evolution, and considered to have been extinct for over 65 million years, is still alive today. It hasn’t changed one iota and those lobed
fins are still just that – lobed fins.
The Zoo Keeper on May 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM
You are incorrect. There is evidence to prove God, that is revelation. The question of God cannot be proven by science, or in any objective way. I can’t bring God out and show him to you. I can’t perform a miracle and convince you (even if I did it’d be reasoned away). The question of God is answered in the individual, and what they have experienced. I believe in God because I see his evidence in me, in others, and in my world. That is why I’m not trying to prove theism. I’m just trying to show that the question of God requires a decision, and either theist or atheist your decision is based on faith.
Your second statement is just as faulty as your first. The world is predominately Theist. Most of the people of the world would claim that they have had some experience with the divine. This experience is completely individual and cannot be adequately studied by science. Atheism does not follow reasonably because it claims that the majority of people are wrong and seeks to prove so. This is absurd because one cannot prove a universal negative. Atheism finds itself in a position where to be scientifically viable, and faith free, it must prove that every person who believes in a God is insane, in order to discredit the belief. It can’t do that. It is a belief system based on faith in a universal negative.
The only logical default position is agnosticism.
Keljeck on May 8, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Zoo Keeper,
Speciation is the answer.
I sort of figured that no level of evidence, outside of a complete linear set of fossils from invertibrates to vertibrates to humans would do. Evolutionary theory is, currently, the best explanation.
So, what happens should the fossil become complete and your hip joint is shown to be developed over a few hundred transitional forms? I have a hunch that something involving opposable thumbs will become the rage.
It doesn’t matter so much that things are incomplete, what matters is that there is no theory better. When one comes along, I’ll have to carefully consider it, as I do with all such things. Insertion of God into the parts of the incomplete fossil record is tantamount to inserting tiny pixies into the theory of electricty or invisible angel hands into the theory of gravity. It has no place.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Oof. I’m reeling.
nico on May 8, 2007 at 3:31 PM
I beg your pardon. I was not questioning whether you had studied the belief system or not. I was questioning your studies on classical texts at large. You claimed the Bible is historically poor. Even secular classical scholars would disagree with this claim. It’s not opinion but fact that the book itself is regarded as a strong historical piece.
I’m not questioning your belief or disbelief in God, Christ, or anyone else in directing you to the apologetics site. If you assert you’ve studied Christianity to the point that you feel comfortable rejecting it, then I respect your choice— whether I agree with it or not.
And, by the way, I find it incredibly arrogant to assume that just because someone suggests you may not have studied all the facts in regard to a specific field that might be pertinent to a discussion they are automatically being arrogant themselves. You made a weak claim regarding the nature of the Bible, and I directed you to alternate evidence.
If your belief is so weak that you can’t handle someone offering an alternative look on one aspect of it, then I feel sorry for you. I personally study the alternatives people broach to me on my beliefs all the time. I figure it certainly never hurts me to look deeper, and it helps me better understand the position of those with whom I disagree.
I apologize if you were offended, but I don’t apologize for providing the link to additional information as it may, at least, help someone else balance their thinking.
TXRedhead on May 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I was not offended in any way. In fact I am quite amused by the arguments of theists.
I do not think any less of them.
Before 1492, it was common knowledge that the world was flat and that if you sailed too far you would fall odd the edge. And even after that people believed that the Earth and then the Sun were the center of the Universe. We know better now.
Death is a scary thing, if it gives you some comfort to believe that part of you will live on after death, then hey whatever gets you through the day.
When you look at the origin of the various religous memes, it is pretty easy to see how they evolved over the years as powerful people wielded these memes to increase they’re power. Whether they call themselves Iman, Priest, Shaman, Pope, Ayatollah or whatever, get the masses believeing in your set of beliefs and you are set for life.
Mohammed figured this out. Joseph Smith figured this out. David Koresh figured this out.
What is truly mind boggling is even when you have a religion invented by a science fiction author that is truly bizarre, it has no shortage of people that want to believe.
As long as there is gullibility and a profit in taking advantage of gullibility we will have religion.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 8, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Krydor:
“Speciation” is NOT the answer. Get beyond looking at species’ similarities and look at particular biomechanical functions. I’ve chosen the ball-and-socket joint because it is the easiest to comprehend. You don’t have to have a PhD to see that there is no feasible means by which such a feature could develop “over a few hundred transitional forms”. Like a square peg trying to move smoothly in a round hole, there is NO transition. It has to be a convex form in a corresponding concave form, from the start, or it won’t work properly.
I’m not telling you to put God in the “gap”, but don’t tell me (or my son in public school) that evolution is fact, simply because we don’t have a better explanation for now.
The Zoo Keeper on May 8, 2007 at 4:07 PM
And Louis Pasteur refuted the idea of spontaneous generation.
Rose on May 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Zoo Keeper,
I don’t want to misinterpret, so let me see if I get it:
1) No fossil evidence of the evolution of the ball and socket joint
2) This disproves evolution
3) Therefore the joint was designed by an intellegence of some sort.
Ok, now, I’m a guy who loves logic. I’m rational about most things, except my love of the Oakland Raiders.
What happens, should a fossil meet your criteria? Because if we take the above (hastily constructed) argument, that disproves an intelligent designer. You might really want to think it through. All I need is proof of evolution of ANY joint, which I have.
The conjecture you are engaged in, taken at face value (hence the need for clarification) is that everything was going along swimmingly (HA! JOKE!) and suddenly, out of the blue a designer came along and said “Hey, you know what these fish need? Hips!”
Religion, faith and philosophy are here for the why, science is here for the how. They are complimentary but they certainly are not interchangeable. I’ll have to re-read St. Augustine, because I get the distinct impression that I cribbed that from him.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
They knew the earth was spherical at that point. The old Columbus story saying they thought the world was flat is false. They just didn’t see the point in financing an expedition to nowhere.
That’s not a fair argument. It takes a certain bias against religion to come to such a conclusion. This is because Religion is not exclusive to being used to maintain power. Any sort of belief system can be used to this end. For example, the Soviet Union used a belief system based on Marxism and a hatred of religion to increase their power. No religion was necessary, and no religion was used. But it was used in the same way as one would wield a religion.
The religion itself is not what’s at fault. Religion has done many good things. Religion has been used to end wars, heal people, create great works of art, and free slaves. It’s not the religion that’s evil, it’s the people. And yes, sometimes the people make the religions. Yet a person made Marxism, and a person made Fascism.
Keljeck on May 8, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Krydor:
1) Correct
2) Correct – as far as Darwinian evolution.
3) I have my opinion, but I am not willing to foist that opinion on anyone,
as fact.
I’m talking about a ball-and-socket joint, but I would love to know what proof you have concerning the evolution of any joint?? Even a basic hinge joint requires proper alignment on an axis. Bend that axis (even slightly) and it won’t function properly. Take a door hinge and bend it in a vice, then see if it works.
“Science” is simply the human brain’s (very limited) interpretation and understanding of the world around us – based on the limited senses we possess. Unfortunately, at this present point in time, science, i.e. us, can’t answer all the “hows”. There are people, however, under the guise of science that insist on stating certain theories, as fact. There are few things in life that I’m willing to state, as fact. I do know, however, that under our current understanding of biology and physics, certain mechanisms cannot evolve based on the Darwinian model.
The Zoo Keeper on May 8, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Well argued, here. I would agree with the statement that agnosticism is a kind of good default position, simply because without a direct experience of God or the disposition to comprehend the religious, it may be difficult to know of God specifically.
There’s something called ‘Adam & Evolution’ – which is to say, the belief that yes things were created, but that observable evidence has shown that they also evolve. F. Schoun did not believe in evolution, but he may have had something like in mind when he said ‘Elaboration’.
This requires a careful reading of Genesis and practically any religious text speaking of creation. Of course, like many things, if you take Genesis 100% literally it does not make sense. The purpose for this, I believe, is to force the reader to understand that what is being said is both actual and metaphorical; yes God created the Heavens and the earth; but what is God speaking? Did he literally say ‘let there be light’, like, in English? If you look at speech as an idea, you find that it refers to the vocal use of language, or words. Christ is described as the word of God and thus Paul states that ‘All was created through him.’ We may be able to assume that the writer of Genesis (most likely Moses) did not think of Jesus when he wrote ‘God spoke…’ but then again, the idea of revelation, that is inspired writing, means that while the human authors are different the divine Author is the same. Thus we have the concept of the unity of scripture. This is likely partly how the Canon was assembled by the early councils.
Evolution means a ‘rolling out’. (as a scroll.) This implies in a sense, it being rolled up first. This idea might be called ‘involution’. (Sorry if I’m putting periods on the wrong side of the quotes here…) Involution is the reverse of evolution, and so if man evolved last, he was involved first. Feel free to note the synchronicity of the words.
It might be said that all living creatures are involved from man, in that each carries a characteristic or archetype (more than one perhaps) of humanness. In greek Mythology there is an interesting notion; man was created by Prometheus (forethought) and the rest of the animals by Epimetheus (afterthought.)
I cannot disagree about evolution; but I would say that Natural Selection is insufficient in itself to explain evolution. What I am saying is, Darwinists, who claim that Evolution by Natural Selection can explain the Origin of Species are wrong.
There are several other principles that need to be discovered or understood before we can explain the origin of our physical form.
Genesis gives a hint: Forces->Heavenly Bodies->Earthly Bodies->Archetypes->Elaborations->Man
That is just off of the top of my head, reading into the symbolism used in the language of the first chapter. Seven is a number generally used to mean ‘the completion of a cycle’ which we all live weekly.
To answer the question of evolution we would need to know why things exist, to figure out where they are going, that is, what the laws and principles are guiding them toward on the many levels.
I would caution against taking the scripture as a purely metaphorical text; no amount of philosophy and wisdom saves a man. (Solomon says, Death comes for both the wise and the fool.)
Pfeh! Got to go.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3