| 1 | Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." | And why should we take the prouncements of Ray Comfort seriously when they deny the conclusion of the eminent biologist (and incidentallly, devout Christian) Theodosius Dobzhansky? | Unsupported assertion |
| 2 | For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. | Actually it has. Even a few minutes on google will show that there are several explanations. | FALSE |
| 3 | No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery. | Complete and utter nonsense! No evolutionary biologist has ever suggested such a ridiculous scenario | Straw Man |
| 4 | Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime. | An absolute falsehood. There is a huge body of scientific literature which does exactly that. | FALSE |
| 5 | Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. | An absurd assertion. "Half evolved" is meaningless. Populations of organism evolve. It is a process. | Misrepresentation |
| 6 | The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. | No, but we find their more primitive precursors in the fossil record, and forms which demonstrate the viablity of intermediates amongst existing organisms. That is what evolutionary theory predicts. It doesn't predict "half-evolved" forms | Misrepresentation |
| 7 | None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye. | ..and nor would we expect it to. What we *do* expect is that the intermediate forms between a light-sensitive cell and the complex vertebrate eye should be viable. As Darwin devoted much of a chapter of "Origin of Species" to describing this series of intermediates with reference to existing organisms, this is a rather blatant misrepresentation. | Misrepresentation |
| 8 | All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. | …which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. | Misrepresentation |
| 9 | Everything that we see in creation is in full working order—from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom—from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant. | …which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. | Misrepresentation |
| 10 | But not only do we see this mature completion in creation; we see it displayed in the fossil record. It reveals that each animal was complete. | …which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. | Misrepresentation |
| 11 | Historical and present creation stands as a stark testimony to the folly of Darwinian evolution. | "Present creation", eh? Is Comfort claiming that we can observe the creation of new species before our eyes ex nihilo? The simple facts are that we not only observe evolution in action in existing organisms, but that it is the only scientific explanation for the fossil record. | FALSE |
| 12 | Darwin was certainly on to something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." | ..but he concluded that the weight of evidence which supported his theory was so great that it could not be ignored | Misrepresentation |
| 13 | My second point is that Scott is happy for students to read the first eight and the last 10 pages of the Introduction, but she doesn't want them to waste their time on the meat in the sandwich. She says that this portion is my weakest, most tasteless of arguments. If that is true, shouldn't she then encourage students to read that portion to prove the weakness of my case? Instead, she says not to read it. I wonder why? | Perhaps because it's a load of regurgitated creationist drivel? "a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments, teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking." | Misrepresentation |
| 14 | Scott continues, "There are more specimens of 'Ardi' (the newly described Ardipithecus ramidus) than there are of Tyrannosaurus . . . We and modern chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago . . . ." But that's another evolutionary "Oops!" if you believe the learned scientists on the Discovery Channel. | In what way is that an "evolutionary oops!"? We know from the genetic record that we share a common ancestor with chimps. We share many biological characters with chimps. | FALSE |
| 15 | In a recent two-hour documentary about Ardi, the scientists said, "Ever since Darwin, we have bought into the idea that humans evolved from ancient chimplike creatures. | …a view which is supported by the discovery of 'Ardi'. | FALSE |
| 16 | That's because modern chimps seemed to share a lot of anatomy and modern behavior with humans. | "Seemed to"? They do! | Misrepresentation |
| 17 | So the idea that we evolved from something like chimps seemed to make sense. | It still does. | Misrepresentation |
| 18 | But now, the discovery of Ardipithecus shows that this idea is totally and completely wrong." | No, it doesn't. It shows that the evolutionary relationships of chimps and humans are bit more complicated than we thought. | FALSE |
| 19 | Did you hear what they said? This idea that we evolved from ancient chimplike creatures is totally and completely wrong. | No, they didn't. They said that the relationship is more complex than we thought. | FALSE |
| 20 | I am aware that it is the learning process of evolutionary "science" to continually discover itself to be wrong. So there can never be a time when believers can claim they have the truth. | Quite so. Science doesn't claim to have the "truth". It offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed and measured. | Misrepresentation |
| 21 | This is just as well, because each new and believed hypothesis, like the crazy fashions of a superficial teenager, is in time discarded in favor of the new. | Utter nonsense. Hypotheses are built from the evidence, tested by the acquisition of new evidence, and revised or rejected if that is what the evidence demands. | Misrepresentation |
| 22 | After addressing my arguments from the portion of the Introduction she doesn't want students to read, | She doesn't care if her student read it or not. She says that it's a waste of time to read it because it's "a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments, teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking." | Misrepresentation |
| 23 | Scott says, "More fossils will provide more details, but this outline of human evolution is not in serious doubt among scientists." Hear her own words: "More fossils will provide more details." In other words, they still don't have the undisputed fossils. | Of course they have "undisputed fossils"! It's just that they don't give all the details of what is a complex story | FALSE |
| 24 | That's what Darwin lamented 150 years ago! He said that when a skeptic "may ask in vain, 'Where are the numberless transitional links?' " Darwin's answer was that the missing links "may lie buried under the ocean." They are still buried somewhere, 150 years later. | A complete and utter falsehood! There are literally thousands of such forms in museum collections all over the world. | FALSE |
| 25 | Scott said that "human evolution isn't in serious doubt among scientists." But I say, it should be. | ..and we should accept that because …? | Irrelevant |
| 26 | She also says, "There are splendid fossils of dinosaurs that have feathers and of whales that have legs—and even feet." But she doesn't give me any details of such splendor. | Why should she? Any serious attempt to learn anything about such fossils will show that she is telling the truth. | Irrelevant |
| 27 | Where are they? | In museum collections all over the world. | Irrelevant |
| 28 | Instead, she quotes the Bible: "Oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." However, Jeremiah is speaking of Israel's rejection of the message of the Gospel (not Darwinian evolution), something Scott dismisses as "rather heavy-handed evangelism." | Bearing in mind the level of dogmatic ignorance displayed in this blog, I'd say that her quotation is highly apt. | Irrelevant |
| 29 | She then encourages doubters to consider museums where "you will find transitional fossils galore." I went to the Smithsonian to see the fossils galore, and they were there—millions of fossils that were evidence of special creation. | Well, the people who actually *study* fossils will point out many such fossils. I suggest that unless you can provide an adequate explanation for why they are *not* transitional, there is no reason to accept your empty assertion. | Unsupported assertion |
| 30 | The Smithsonian didn't have any transitional fossils that proved evolution | Well, no. That's because science doesn't offer proof. However, there are many specimens there, including many on public display, which are the transitional forms predicted by evolutionary theory. | Misrepresentation |
| 31 | (staunch believers claim that they have them, but not on display). | An outright falsehood. "Staunch believers" will simply tell you to open your eyes and look at the fossils | FALSE |
| 32 | I also visited the evolution museum in Paris (Grande Galerie de L'Evolution). I took a camera crew, and we spent an hour looking for the evolution exhibit. It didn't have one. All it had were millions of fossils of fully formed animals that God created. | What a load of unmitigated bull! Evolutionary theory does *not* predict that we should find "half-formed animals". | Misrepresentation |
| 33 | There are so many gaps and holes in the theory of evolution that you could drive a fleet of a thousand fully laden 18-wheelers through them. | As all you have managed to do so far is to misrepresent evolutionary theory and bolster your argument with a load of falsehoods, this is clearly untrue | FALSE |
| 34 | The irony is that I can see them, | …an assertion not bourne out by the content of this blog | FALSE |
| 35 | and I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution. | That is very clear from the content of the blog. Perhaps one should listen to what the experts *do* say rather than what someone who admits to a lack of expertise in the subject says? | TRUE |
| 36 | So, what does that say about the theory's experts, whoever they are? | It says that they know rather more about the subject than you do, and do not need to rely in misrepresentation and outright falsehoods to make their case | Irrelevant |
| 37 | It says (as a wise man once said) that man will believe anything . . . as long as it's not in the Bible. | …which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject of evolutionary biology | Irrelevant |
