Ray Comfort’s Bananas

The title of this post is an intentional pun, since it could be a reference to the bananas belonging to Ray Comfort or to the fact that he is bananas. Both are relevant, since he is famous for introducing the laughable “banana argument” into the discourse of apologetics. More recently, he helpfully illustrated that scientific evidence, even scientific evidence from the last century, is simply too dangerous and too harmful to young-earth creationist pseudoscience for it to be safe to expose such people to it. And thus Comfort has offered a bogus edition of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species which offers a dubious introduction and leaves out parts of the book the argument of which might have been too persuaded. I still can’t figure out how many Christians, whose Bibles contain warnings about teachers who “tickle the ears” and say what they want to hear, can so persistently assume such warnings are about others, their opponents, but not relevant to themselves. Much contemporary Christianity is characterized by limiting one’s exposure to any viewpoint that doesn’t agree with what you already think – an approach that obviously makes learning impossible.

Genie Scott has offered a response to Comfort. And if you want some responses to the banana argument, I’ve shared a number of those before. I also shared before a Romanian’s reply to Comfort and his sidekick Kirk Camerson.

Let me also emphasize that Charles Darwin’s classic On The Origin Of Species is, on the one hand, superseded by the vast amount of further knowledge about biology, paleontology and genetics that has accumulated since he wrote. But on the other hand, those who want to read it can download it for free from the Internet Archive or Google Books and thus have no reason to read Ray Comfort’s rewritten “Conservative Bible Project” edition of the book.

  • Daniel O

    "Much contemporary Christianity is characterized by limiting one's exposure to any viewpoint that doesn't agree with what you already think"Don't know if I agree with this statement James…. perhaps many evangelical and american christians but not "contemporary chirstianity" per se….

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    I'd like to believe you are correct – and I did write "much" rather than "most" or "all." But I think that we all at least face the temptation to surround ourselves with sources of information, friends and conversation partners that reinforce rather than challenge what we already think.Is that a better way of putting it?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17899049404620738944 scripto

    I agree. I find myself just skimming over the Creationist and ID material. Then I feel as though I have to wash my brain out with science. Though, it is more interesting to dialogue with someone who disagrees with you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16791629233605877049 Porlock Junior

    Why does everything remind me of Galileo? Well, probably background and interests; but also because the Galileo-Darwin parallels are in fact so numerous. (As of course are the non-parallels, like the progress of the teeth in the respective Churches' official policies, from very considerable to effectively zero).Like, when the controversy heated up in 1616 after years of Copernicus being ignored, the Church withdrew his book from circulation to make corrections, which is to say, remove those things that would mislead you into thinking he meant what he said. Then, 100 years after they silenced Galileo, guess what? They formally issued Galileo's works, with corrections to make it clear that he really didn't mean this Earth-moves stuff.This idiot's corrections are different — you don't think he was as smart as a bunch of Dominicans, do you? — but we have the same fixing-up of the classic work to be sure it tells the right story.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X