By Mano Singham
Two days before the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species on November 21, they plan to distribute 50,000 free copies of the book at 50 prominent universities. The catch? They have added a 50-page introduction where Comfort will point out all the flaws in the theory. They can do this because the copyright has expired on Darwin's book.
Here is Cameron's and Comfort's plug for the plan:
Hoo-boy, I can't wait.
In the following video, a young woman (from Romania?) makes fun of the whole idea. She seems to have a solid grasp of the science, religion, law, and politics in the US, and also exposes the outright distortions that Cameron makes. (Language advisory)
Does this effort by Comfort and Cameron require a response? Various ideas have been put forward. Some are suggesting that we pick up the free copies, tear out the introduction, and then give the books away. I must say that I don't like this idea. I am not in favor of mutilating any books for any reason. Such an action would also merely give more publicity to this venture and open us up to charges that we are trying to censor alternative views.
My suggestion is to let Comfort and Cameron go through with this plan unobstructed because I think it will boomerang on its creators. Origins is, after all, a classic work of science, very readable for the non-scientist, that should belong in every home and be read by everyone. It is a remarkable book and anyone who reads it cannot fail to be impressed by Darwin's careful and painstaking marshalling of evidence and argument, both for and against his theory, and the way he draws his conclusions. It reveals the workings of the mind of a true scholar, doggedly pursuing evidence towards the truth, wherever it might lead.
Unfortunately, most religious people in the US will not even touch this great book or even want to be seen reading it because it has been so absurdly demonized, and Darwin portrayed as an anti-god zealot. But we know that religious people are strongly attracted to things that are forbidden or labeled as sinful. So some religious people who pick up this religiously approved copy because of this campaign may be tempted to actually read at least part of Origins and perhaps realize that they have been hoodwinked, that the book is not an anti-god rant by the anti-Christ.
In addition, an argument between Darwin on one side and Comfort and Cameron on the other is frankly a no-contest. Comfort has already become a YouTube legend, a worldwide laughingstock for his argument that the banana is "the atheist's nightmare" because it proves the existence of god. I never tire of watching his video about it.
In fact, I think that Comfort should give away a banana with each book, to sweeten the offer. No need to thank me for this suggestion, Ray.
But Cameron is no slouch either when it comes to stupid arguments. Who can forget his "proof" that the theory of evolution must be false because we do not see transitional forms. It is true that transitional forms are an important part of the theory of evolution, because species evolve in time, changing under the pressure of natural selection. But the idea that no transitional fossils have been unearthed is laughable. Almost all fossils of extinct species are either transitional forms or the end of their line, and we have many of them. Tiktaalik is a superb and dramatic recent example.
But Cameron seems to have this bizarre notion that a transitional form consists of a crude hybrid of two currently existing species. Cameron gives as an example that, since we currently have ducks and crocodiles, Darwin's theory predicts the existence of an organism that should have the body of a duck and the head of a crocodile. Since we do not see such an animal, which he cleverly calls a 'crocoduck', that means that evolution is false and god exists. No really, that's his argument.
Perhaps many of you are thinking at this point that I must be exaggerating. Surely, nobody could be that ignorant and stupid? Well, let's go to the video:
Cameron is really proud of this argument, having also trotted it out in a debate with atheists from the Rational Response Squad, as can be seen in the next video. Cameron's crocoduck argument starts at 3:45, and he then adds 'bull frog' and 'sheep dog' as similar ridiculous hybrids. He must really think this is a clever argument to put so much effort into creating those drawings.
I have been recently praising the online comic strip Jesus and Mo. If I had any cartooning talent at all (which I don't) and also a better developed sense of humor, I would start a comic strip similar to that called The Adventures of Banana Man and Crocoduck, based on the antics of Comfort and Cameron.
One can think of several directions in which to take it. My preference would be to have them be like Batman and Robin, where Comfort and Cameron have ordinary everyday identities. But whenever they encounter evil in the form of atheist science (which is everywhere), they change into their secret identities as Banana Man and Crocoduck (complete with appropriate costumes), and venture out to fight it in the name of religion, making fools of themselves in the process.
Comfort's introduction of their edition of Origins should provide more than enough material to work with.
POST SCRIPT: Religious people can't handle the truth about Darwin and evolution
It seems as if a critically acclaimed feature film called Creation, dealing with the life of Charles Darwin (played by Paul Bettany) cannot find a distributor in the US, because they think the subject is too controversial!
Creation was developed by BBC Films and the UK Film Council, and stars Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's deeply religious wife, Emma. It is based on the book, Annie's Box, by Darwin's great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, and portrays the naturalist as a family man tormented by the death in 1851 of Annie, his favourite child. She is played in the film by 10-year-old newcomer Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West.
Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."
Maybe a film called The Adventures of Banana Man and Crocoduck could be made instead. I am open to offers from Hollywood. Have their people call my people and we'll do lunch.































Intelligent Design
Interesting article but it sheds little light on the debate between those who believe in evolution vs. creation. For anyone who is interested in learning more about intelligent design (creation) check out these books: "Not By Chance!" by Lee Spetner formerly of Johns Hopkins University; "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe of Lehigh University. To understand how weak the theory of evolution really is read "Beyond Natural Selection" by evolution advocate Robert Wesson of MIT or just as good The Burgess Shale by Steven Gould.
Intelligent Design
What precisely is weak about the theory of evolution? This is the point that Creationists or those sympathetic to their position constantly make and the only examples that I can see being offered is that there are aspects of Evolutionary theory that are yet to be explained or understood. Well, so what? That is the nature of scientific progress; if science understood everything, it would stop.
The other thing I don't understand is that Creationists fail to discern the difference between the phenomenon and the theory that explains it. Take for instance gravity; there is no mechanism in any theory of gravity to explain how it works yet Intelligent Design/Creationists have no problem with the theory of gravity whatsoever. Evolution, on the other hand, is a far more complete and robust theory; it has a mechanism to explain inheritance: DNA.
But the really salient fact is that every single Intelligent Design/Creationist lies about their unbelief in evolution. That is correct, they lie when they say they don't believe in it. What I see is Intelligent Design/Creationists fully embracing the fruits of evolutionary theory (you go to the doctor, you take all your medicine so the infection doesn't evolve and become resistant to the medicine and you never, ever question your doctor that your disease be caused by demons instead of microbes) while at the same time arguing that evolution doesn't explain anything. Why trust your health and the health of your loved ones to a theory that you claim doesn't work? That, to me, is sheer madness yet you do it all the time.
It isn't the theory but the implications of that theory that bother you. The fact that the theory is so successful (again, you assent to its success by embracing modern medicine which is based firmly and solely on evolutionary biology) drives home the implications and it is against those implications that you constantly thunder. None of you realize that you lose the battle by cavorting with the enemy, in this case, medicine. It is you and your lifestyle that broadcasts loud and clear that you believe, trust and place all your confidence in evolution and what it says about how the world of living things works. If the implications bother you so much, simply come up with a system that is more successful and explains the functioning of the human body better than evolution. It couldn't be more simple; it is, in fact, the way science works. But, since you yourself trust your life and the lives of your loved ones on the fact that evolution and the fruits of it are correct, your arguments seem quite schizophrenic . You can't argue with the results (your own life testifies to that) so you try take issue with the implications as if implications that don't fit our picture as to how the world should be can't possibly be correct because what I want HAS to be what is. If someone presented an argument like that to you in any other area what would YOU think of their intellectual prowess? It would be as if someone called you an idiot for believing that internal combustion engines worked, lobbied for the removal of school curriculum that taught about internal combustion engines, claimed that this country was founded by people who didn't believe in the existence of internal combustion engines (they didn't) and then, after that diatribe, climbed into their internal combustion powered vehicle and drove away. Hopefully, that example will help you to understand what the problem is with your position. It would really help your credibility if you acted as if you believed the nonsense that you people write on these boards. Why are your actions so out of congruence with what you say? I hope this sheds some light on the evolutionist position. :)
Regards,
Rich
NEMO NASCITUR SAPIENS ARTIFEX