This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Scientist Genie Scott's Last Word to Creationist Ray Comfort: There You Go Again

Scientist Genie Scott's Last Word to Creationist Ray Comfort: There You Go Again - Comments

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 1 by mordacious1

Let me speak for Ray,

There were too many words in Origin, way too many words...

You can't expect people to read a book that is that long, can you?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:03:00 UTC | #411250

Thurston's Avatar Comment 2 by Thurston

That Eugenie Scott, the educator's educator, has to waste her time responding to Ray Comfort, the idiot's idiot, is such a shame. Needless to say, she does a fantastic job, but she might as well be explaining relativity to a chimp.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:13:00 UTC | #411253

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 3 by Rodger T

Unfortunately, even replying to idiots like Ray gives them more credit than they deserve.
This mental midget and his studied stupidity really just need to be ignored or laughed out of town.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:16:00 UTC | #411254

Grace Margaret's Avatar Comment 4 by Grace Margaret

So Comfort censors out entire CHAPTERS of Origin? Why would that be, I wonder? Legally, should he be able to sell or give it out telling people it is a copy of Origins if he butchered and censored it? Are there any laws against such sleazy, blatant misrepresentation?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:37:00 UTC | #411260

cafeeine's Avatar Comment 5 by cafeeine

Apparently this was discovered in the forums a while ago, but a question of whether he plagiarized parts of his introduction has just been mentioned on PZ's blog.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:43:00 UTC | #411263

cvaster's Avatar Comment 6 by cvaster

"I'm glad I'm not his accountant."

what a DUMB comment.

I'm glad you aren't his accountant too, Genie. Because who would want an accountant who doesn't understand Or account for variable change?

Budgets change, cost of production changes, concern and priority for completing tasks as originally planned changes.

You've never done something one way in the past and then been able to do it another way (and better) the second time around?

Yes. You have.

Grow up and check your ego, Genie.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:00 UTC | #411267

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 7 by rod-the-farmer

"Too many words" ??

I am reminded of the movie Amadeus, when the patron of Mozart commented on his new piece

"Too many notes".

Just take some out - which ones ? Aaaaccckkk.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:09:00 UTC | #411270

Grace Margaret's Avatar Comment 9 by Grace Margaret

Young Christians who read Comfort are not going to know that they are being lied to because lying and stealing (plagiarism) is a sin and they will assume he is, um, AWARE of that. As a former Christian, I know I completely trusted that the adults around me were telling me the truth. I don't know how he sleeps at night.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:11:00 UTC | #411273

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 8 by Sally Luxmoore

Comment #429576 by cvaster

Odd comments, verging on the offensive, from a christian apologist...

See previous posts:,page1,60157

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:11:00 UTC | #411271

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 10 by Daisy Skipper

6. Comment #429576 by cvaster

Speaking of DUMB comments... that was a doozie

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:13:00 UTC | #411274

Kmita's Avatar Comment 11 by Kmita

Ray Comfort on The Origin of Species:


Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:25:00 UTC | #411277

Ygern's Avatar Comment 12 by Ygern

cvaster, seriously, is that the best you can do? - attacking a relatively unimportant sentence in the article neither damns the argument nor the author. If Eugenie Scott has a defining characteristic, it is certainly not arrogance or egotism.

This series of articles highlights for me just how much time, energy and money is wasted refuting old nonsense over and over.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times ID or any of the tired old Creationist arguments are completely disproved and rebutted, they just keep on repeating the same old stuff.

I accept that no matter how many times this stupid propaganda is raised, someone has to stand up on the side of science; and we are very fortunate to have someone like Eugenie Scott to keep doing this.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:31:00 UTC | #411279

Century25's Avatar Comment 13 by Century25

Sisyphus had a walk in the park by comparison. The machinations of 'creationism cum intelligent design' is eternally revolting.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:32:00 UTC | #411281

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 14 by alaskansee

@ Comment #429576 by cvaster

Take a chill pill, the big question here is not the vagaries of Comforts statements of financial constraints (he may or may not be telling the truth - he's lying for god after all) rather why the Origin was abridged in the first place AND why this was hidden.

It's good to see Comfort manning up in the latest reprint but as has been posted already I doubt Banana Man understands little if any of the discussion he's involved in.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:34:00 UTC | #411282

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 15 by mordacious1

7. Comment #429579 by rod-the-farmer

...and I thought the reference was too obscure.:)

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:43:00 UTC | #411283

chewedbarber's Avatar Comment 16 by chewedbarber

He must understand most of the discussion because it seems clear to me that he understands the implications of being wrong, and that is something that the more sophisticated theists have yet to understand.

How can he be a creationist?

Well, how can you accept evolution and ponder the exact point in time when the ape received its soul? --what!?

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:45:00 UTC | #411285

room101's Avatar Comment 17 by room101

Why, why, why must this toad (comfort) be given a forum. And by the likes of USNews, no less, a (formerly) reputable magazine. I know they don't "take sides", but wtf.

Turns out (PZ's blog has links) that our good 'ole xtian friend mr. comfort likes to plagiarize. One would think USNews would investigate and if true, lay it on thick.

EDIT: Didn't see that cafeeine beat me to this discovery.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:16:00 UTC | #411289

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 18 by SaintStephen

Can somebody please rub Ray Comfort's nose in a vat of banana DNA separated by pulsed field gel electrophoresis and turn the voltage up really, REALLY high? Then, as you watch him writhe and twitch in this de facto Darwinian electric chair, please read from the following script:

Meet your cousins, Ray! They're here to assist you in your own evolution!

Then (yes, I'm not finished), turn off the juice, and scrape Ray's comatose gluteus maximus with a rusty grapefruit knife and insert the modified Ray-Banana DNA obtained into a marsupial embryo (a kangaroo, perhaps) that is then brought to term.

The result? A bouncing banana man fully on-board with the tenets of evolutionary theory. He would be great at parties, too. Oh, and please discard the earlier Ray in the proper bio-hazard container.

(Okay okay, I'm going, I'm going...)

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:28:00 UTC | #411291

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 19 by Border Collie

Sorry, this is simply too ridiculous. I was raised and grew up with these wingnuts and know how they think. Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve. We're doing exactly what they want us to do ... fiddle-farting around in their playground, wasting our time, while they giggle behind our backs, really not giving a shit what we think. They've been doing it for centuries.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:50:00 UTC | #411297

room101's Avatar Comment 20 by room101

Border Collie:

Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve. We're doing exactly what they want us to do ...


Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:11:00 UTC | #411300

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 21 by SaintStephen

Eugenie Scott linked to Todd's Blog. Here's a quote from Todd, a Young-Earth Creationist Scientist:

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
This, my fellow Dawkinsians, is called cognitive dissonance.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:12:00 UTC | #411301

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 22 by prolibertas

'You're entitled to your religious opinions — but not to your own scientific facts.'


Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:40:00 UTC | #411302

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 23 by prolibertas

Border Collie said:

'Engaging and or debating these idiots presents the illusion that there's something to debate about and gives them artificial credibility they don't deserve.'

But if someone doesn't debunk them, they'll say it's because we CAN'T debunk them. At the end of the day, the debates aren't to convince those who are already deadset in their creationism, but to stop others from being convinced by creationism.

I propose a third way- we debate and debunk creationists every time they raise their ugly face, but rather than getting actual scientists to do it and risking giving them an air of credibility, we appoint high school biology students to do it. Have the kids do it for extra credit or something, where by arguing the opposition they demonstrate their knowledge of what they've learnt, while having the fun of pwning creotards.

Then the creationists can't say we're 'too afraid' to debate them, but neither do they gain any credibility through debating actual scientists.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:50:00 UTC | #411303

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 24 by Border Collie

prolibertas ... I agree with you. It's the current cultural context that puts US in the double bind, not them. But, I'm not sure we can ever do much convincing as long as complete ignorance remains the default setting. I guess we can tread water until the paradigm shifts. Also, we could have one of those TV reality shows something like "Are You as Dumb as a Tenth Grader" ... It could be a cable or satellite TV show on some obscure channel between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM. Maybe the BBC there or PBS here could carry it. I know there are some very smart kids out there who could kick their little creationist arses with ease ... It's getting late, I'm getting stupid. Good night all.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:25:00 UTC | #411305

Roy_H's Avatar Comment 25 by Roy_H

To quote Eugenie C. Scott :"But I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort's take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas." Oh I like that !

Why Ray Comfort is a "Fruit cake"

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:54:00 UTC | #411321

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 26 by prolibertas

Haha it'd definitely be fun to see the Comfort/Cameron villainous duo torn apart by a tenth grader.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:56:00 UTC | #411322

AshtonBlack's Avatar Comment 27 by AshtonBlack

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but:

The intro was plagiarised?

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:19:00 UTC | #411324

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 28 by Stafford Gordon

It's 2009 and time to stop arguing about evolution; it's a fact and that's that; it is true!

The task is to teach children the truth before their native ability to think for themselves is damaged by adults who wish to control youngsters for their own selfish ends.

It appears that grown-ups who suffer from the effects of being fed pernitious myths in their youth have been rendered incapable of reasoning for themselves.

I don't think that any amount of discourse will free them from the fossilization of their mental faculties.

Those capable of learning and teaching should concentrate on doing so and not waste time trying to engage with individuals who are beyond the pale.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:01:00 UTC | #411329

UncleVanya's Avatar Comment 29 by UncleVanya

Oh dear - we seem to have been rumbled by Comfort:

"The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility. Professor Dawkins believes that nothing created everything, and his belief is a big intellectual embarrassment to his followers".

You know, that has been something of an elephant in the room, all of us too embarassed to say anything about it.

Perhaps the worst part is the backhanded insult to Darwin:

"If he was alive today, I am sure that he would quickly rise to the top of Disney's imagineers or earn big bucks as a Hollywood screenwriter for science-fiction movies".

So, if the greatest scientist of a generation was alive today, he'd be working for Disney£ No offence to Disney, but that is quite a put down...

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:19:00 UTC | #411340

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 30 by Nunbeliever

I can't understand why a scientist would even have a conversation with a moron like Ray Comfort. He is so desperate for attention it hurts. We should just ignore him for the utter fool he is. He is not worthy of the attention that's been given him lately.

Can't we ever learn that we are playing right into the hands of the creationist by giving them attention. Their followers are not interested in facts or the truth. A good exampel of this was the debate between Dan Barker and the creationist Kyle Butt. After I saw the debate online I thought the creationists must be ashamed for not finding a more intelligent and civilized man to represent their faith. I mean, Kyle Butt is a moron even by creationist standards. Hence I was very suprised when I read the comments. Most creationists actually thought Dan Barker had lost the debate and that it was a great victory for creationists. That's when I finally realized we live in two COMPLETELY different worlds. There can never be a meaningful dialogue between creationists and sensible people any more than there can be a meaningful dialogue between people living in different universes.

In this respect creationists are as alien as E.T. to me. In a biological sense they belong to the same species, but not emotionally or intellectually. The only thing we can do is try to seize their power and try to isolate them and minimize their influence. But, we can never reach them. I'm sorry to say they are LOST!

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:21:00 UTC | #411342