Richard Dawkins and Ray Comfort

_{Clive Hayden

September 26, 2010

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Richard Dawkins takes Ray Comfort out of context:

Dawkins says he doesn’t debate Creationists, yet he debates what Creationists say quite often. Should Dawkins avoid debating Creationists when they are the subject of his lectures and speaking engagements?

Comments

The jokes getting old, ba, but it does seem to be an effective way of avoiding responding to me. But what is your answer to jmac's question. It's very straightforward, and it would seem like it could be answer with a simple "yes" or a "no".Aleta_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

I must say that I'm with Aleta. Trying to get simple, straightforward answers to what people actually believe in these threads is like pulling teeth. The question is open to anyone: If a random mutation were to cause a gene duplication, and somewhere down the line, another mutation caused the gene to have a slightly different function, (like an olfactory receptor that can sense a slightly different chemical) would this constitute a gain of functional information? Yes, or no? After your 'yes' or 'no' answer, obviously feel free to explain why or why not, if you like. But don't forget the answer itself.jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I must admit I'm slightly confused. I know that not all IDers believe the same thing, but unless I'm mistaken, gpuccio would say that only a certain amount of functional information can arise at one time. (I think it's below 500 or 1,000 bits or something in that neighborhood) But you said you're waiting on someone to "show material processes generating any functional information whatsoever" I like you, and I admire your zeal, but saying that natural processes can't add any functional information whatsoever is just patently absurd, as functional information is added to the genome all the time. But perhaps you simply aren't familiar with any of those examples. That's why I'm trying to gauge exactly what kind of example it would take to demonstrate to you that random mutations can add new functional information to the genome.jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Aleta, are you 99.472% certain that it would be straightforward?,,, just how certain are you in this matter? 8)bornagain77_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

P.S. An example of a nice straightforward answer would be, for instance, "Yes", or perhaps "No".Aleta_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

I think a nice straightforward answer to jurassicmac's question would be useful. If the discussion is about whether genetic change can produce new information or not, it would be useful to know in theory what kind of event would count as new information. Aleta_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

JM, well if you want to go hypothetical let's go all the way hypothetical as Dr. Sternberg did an excellent job here recently of going hypothetical: Neo-Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution – Part 2 – Richard Sternberg PhD in Evolutionary Biology http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263746 As well JM, you know the limits you must surpass for functional information as you have been schooled exhaustively by gpuccio, or are you going to deny you have been through this exhaustively?bornagain77_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

BA, for the sake of this discussion, it is hypothetical. If something like that happened, would it be an example of functional information being added to the genome? You asked for an example of natural processes adding functional information to the genome. I'm merely trying to ascertain what kind of event you wold accept as an example.jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

JM, sure hypothetical,,, I know you better than that,, please show the paper you got,, and let me see what you are trying to sell.bornagain77_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, let me ask you one question. Say a gene that encodes for an olfactory receptor is duplicated by a mutation, and another point mutation down the line causes the duplicate olfactory receptor to be sensitive to a different molecule than the old one was. In this hypothetical example, is functional information being added to the genome?jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Ok, who of the ID supporters here does not think the banana was designed? If you think it was designed, why do you think Ray Comfort's argument is silly or weak?zeroseven_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Jurassicmac, If you think Ray Comfort's banana routine is the same argument that Meyer gives for design, or Craig gives for the existence of God, then I doubt if you've been paying attention here. Dawkins ignores strong arguments and prefers to attack the weak ones. This is quite clear.CannuckianYankee_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

JM, whatever on the randomness thing,,, I'm still waiting on you or any other Darwinists to show material processes generating any functional information whatsoever. Why in the world do you act like you got a leg to stand on when you have not even proved this primary point? Your blind faith impresses me not,,, dude!bornagain77_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

jurrasicmac,
Dawkins is right not to waste time debating Comfort or any other YEC; It would be like a professor of Roman history ‘debating’ someone who thinks Rome didn’t even exist, or an Apollo astronaut ‘debating’ someone who believes the moon landing was a hoax. It would only serve to give undue credibility to an absurd position.
Firstly, it is not "like" anything you've mentioned. Secondly, Dawkins does debate what YECs say, why not debate it to their face? Thirdly, this is a weak position to maintain, one that says that they are not worth debating in person, yet he debates what they stand for, but only in their absence. If it is not "worth" debating, then be consistent. Fourthly, assuming that YECs are not worth debating begs the question, if you dismiss them to begin with, then nothing they say will be valuable as truth of the natural world. But this very debate is about truth of the natural world. Fifthly, if the atmosphere of YEC is so bad as you maintain, what does Dawkins have to lose? This argument about undue "publicity" of YECs is a red herring, because publicity comes from the public, and the majority of Americans side with Ray Comfort, not Richard Dawkins, thus the argument could be made that Ray Comfort is giving Richard Dawkins undue publicity.
You seem to be so certain of the outcome; why bother having the debates in the first place then?
You should be asking yourself this question.Clive Hayden_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, Dawkins is right not to waste time debating Comfort or any other YEC; It would be like a professor of Roman history 'debating' someone who thinks Rome didn't even exist, or an Apollo astronaut 'debating' someone who believes the moon landing was a hoax. It would only serve to give undue credibility to an absurd position. Yes, Dawkins refuses to debate creationists head on; but most astronomers refuse to debate flat-earthers head on, and most doctors refuse to debate head on those who think communicable diseases are caused by demons and not micro-organisms. Why is the same outrage directed at them?
If he were to debate Meyer or Craig, or Behe, et al, he would lose.
You seem to be so certain of the outcome; why bother having the debates in the first place then?jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Jurassicmac, No, I think you miss the point. Dawkins refuses to debate "Creationists" head on. Instead, he chooses to ridicule only those who have weak arguments for design, and weak examples of Christian faith. He also picks out the worst examples of Christians in "The God Delusion" and ridicules them, rather than taking on the strongest arguments. This is why he refuses to debate people such as Meyer and Craig. If he were to debate Meyer or Craig, or Behe, et al, he would lose.CannuckianYankee_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

bornagain77:
M, and yet in all seriousness, Scientists and Professors pontificate the ability of random material processes to generate libraries of unmatched complex functional information
Ba77, that is a complete change of topic; the OP was about Comfort's arguments, not Dawkin's. And besides, "Atheist make silly claims, therefore why call us out?" is not a satisfying rebuttal. But your comment hits on another point. Dawkins doesn't refute any point that a large number of creationists don't believe. You, and many others here, keep describing evolution as a 'random material process,' no matter how many times it is explained to you that evolution is anything but random. Selection is the opposite of randomness. I fear that the irony is lost on you that you accuse Dawkins of only addressing the weakest arguments for ID, when you yourself are attacking the polar opposite of what evolutionists claim. Again, just for clarity: Evolution is not a random process; though it has random elements (mutations are random with respect to fitness) but combined with natural selection, the process as a whole is decidedly non-random. Evolution is caused by non-random differential reproductive success.jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

JM, and yet in all seriousness, Scientists and Professors pontificate the ability of random material processes to generate libraries of unmatched complex functional information, though no one has ever observed said processes generating any functional information whatsoever, and all this happens day after in our top labs and universities, with not so much as a giggle from any of their peers listen to such folly. JM does this not strike you as strange in the least?bornagain77_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

CY @ 14
And this is another example of Dawkins finding the weakest arguments for design and mocking it.
I think you miss Dawkin's point. He's using Comfort's banana as an example of the absurd arguments that Creationist use; he's not simply attacking the ridiculous arguments of his opponents, he's pointing out that they are using ridiculous arguments in the first place. Make no mistake: Even though Comfort was playing it for laughs, he was genuinely using the banana as an argument for design. In both his live delivery, and the video snippet with Cameron, you can see the Coke can. His argument was essentially: "Since we know the Coke can is designed as a source of nutrients with a container, and the banana is a similar, if not better source of nutrients with a container, we can infer that the banana was designed as well."
He does this in his books as well – he finds the lowest common denominator and attacks it. He’s not really attacking design, but a parody of it.
But here's the thing: These 'parodies of the design argument' as you call them, are held by a large number of people. It's not a 'parody' of an opinion if many people actually hold the opinion. It's hard to make an intentionally absurd creationist claim and not find someone who holds that view. See Poe's law. He's not attacking arguments that creationists aren't making. Comfort's banana is just a prime example; an absurd argument for design that was put forth, by Comfort and others, that is so unbelievably ridiculous that even his allies say "He must have been joking."jurassicmac_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

According to the link below on Ray Comfort's official blog he's was joking about the banana example. http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-why-do-creationists-find-it-funny.html The scary thing is, I once witnessed a young lady using the banana example to argue for design on a general discussion section of a video game forum. A Darwinist who she was debating ridiculed her and said that the banana was the result of human selective breeding.Chimera_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

The rest of the '4 nails' video, with Douglas Axe, Johnathan Wells, Richard Sternberg, and Stephen Meyer. is a bit hard to find, but here is the entire series: Part 1 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/17/9zf6skWdsCQ part 2 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/16/ea1SgYaTUQs part 3 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/15/XYcFZ23RWVA part 4 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/14/PyEVuCugQj4 part 5 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/13/JRQu9rnz5PQ part 6 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/12/1Wc4LHAd4icbornagain77_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

andrewjg, I think Comfort is serious that the banana is a good example of design, and he even had to correct himself regarding this as the Cavendish banana that is common today as an export item to the US and Europe is biologically engineered. It seems that wild-type bananas don't have that shape, and are filled with hard seeds. So I think he was serious about the example, while using a humorous way to make his case. In any case, I don't think he's currently using that as an example. He clearly has lost that debate, because it wasn't a good example in the first place.CannuckianYankee_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Speaking of Stephen Meyer, here is a homemade video of the recent SMU event; 4 Nails In Darwin's Coffin: The video is a bit fuzzy but the sound quality is good: 4 Nails In Darwin's Coffin Event at SMU 1/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zf6skWdsCQbornagain77_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Bantay, You're correct. Let's get them to debate each other. Maybe that will keep them occupied while Craig and Meyer form a team to debate the best of them. I'm not certain who would be on the other team. :)CannuckianYankee_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Neither Ray Comfort or Richard Dawkins has done any good science lately, nor are either of them qualified to engage in serious, scholarly discussion of the existence of God from logic or philosophy. The best Dawkins will ever have to offer for atheism is mockery, and mockery just isn't very interesting. And the last time I saw Ray Comfort was in that dreadful, embarrassing so-called debate that he and Kirk Cameron had with the so-called rational responders. Neither side won. Each side made themselves look pretty bad. I wouldn't expect anything different with a Dawkins/Comfort debate. Dawkins would not prove that there is no God and would entertain his following with mockery and humor, and Comfort would fall all over himself trying to discuss issues he is not qualified to discuss.Bantay_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee@13 Is he really being serious? Surely it is a bit of fun. Cameron is laughing in the video. If he is being serious why does he get given any time by creationists?andrewjg_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

"while Dawkins took him as being serious, which is why Comfort said that without an audience (filmed next to Kirk Cameron) his admittedly humorous illustration 'falls flat.'" This is correct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 This is the video that Dawkins was probably mocking. It gets mocked on YouTube often. Cameron lends some seriousness to the video. I think the problem Comfort has here in both videos is that he IS serious about bananas being evidence of design. In them he's mocking Darwinists who fail to see the obvious, and that's what the audience finds funny overall in the first video. Although Comfort's antics are also funny. It's the larger context of obvious design that is presented as serious. I wonder what Comfort does with watermelons, pineapples, grapefruit, pumpkins, etc. If his design argument were valid, all fruit would be shaped similar to bananas. And this is another example of Dawkins finding the weakest arguments for design and mocking it. He does this in his books as well - he finds the lowest common denominator and attacks it. He's not really attacking design, but a parody of it. Typical.CannuckianYankee_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Ray is great when it comes to explaining scriptures and salvation but not when it comes to debating science. I thought Lennox did a fantastic job when he debated Dawkins and I don't blame Dawkins for running away from Craig with his tail between his legs. I laughed at Ray's banana's sketch, who would have guessed so many evolutionist don't have a sense of humor?mofi_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

But Clive, what is he illustrating?jurassicmac_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Barry, I should've elaborated a bit I think when I said Dawkins was taking Comfort out of context. Ray Comfort was being intentionally funny using the banana (that's why the audience was laughing), while Dawkins took him as being serious, which is why Comfort said that without an audience (filmed next to Kirk Cameron)his admittedly humorous illustration "falls flat."Clive Hayden_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply