Put one the stupidest Christian leaders with one who claims to speak for God, and get them talking about evolution, and here’s what you get:
Comfort is talking about his new backwash-based book, You Can Lead An Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think. (It has 2 1/2 stars on Amazon. Can’t we make that a bit smaller?)
Wait — evidence? I don’t think Ray Comfort would know what evidence was if it hit him in the face. Remember when he presented his “scientific evidence for God” on Nightline? It was a total flop — he just presented the “crockaduck” and his usual gospel message based on the 10 commandments. He’s a slimy salesman who gives Christianity a bad name.
Here’s his defintion of evolution:
[Evolution, a "fairy-tale for grownups" is] basically idolatry creating God in their own image — a god that doesn’t require moral accountability and that’s why it’s so embraced by this generation.
So why are atheists just as moral as Christians? Evolution has nothing to do with morality — evolution is a biological issue, and morality is an ethical issue.
We all agree about basic morality like killing, stealing, raping and lying. But you won’t find Comfort agreeing with that. In his mind, atheists and evolutions are evil and simply looking for an excuse to go kill and rape people. Perhaps that’s because without his deity threatening him, Ray Comfort would be killing, raping, and stealing?
And did you know that atheists lack the “sixth sense”?
God gave us six senses. The sixth sense is common sense and that’s what the atheists and evolutionists lack.
So believing an imaginary sky-god created everything out of nothing, then destroyed the earth with a global flood and fit the earth’s millions of species on a boat with enough food to last a year, is the pinnacle of common sense?
He also uses the classic designer argument for God’s existence:
You can’t have a creation without a creator. Show me a building that didn’t have a builder. Show me a painting that doesn’t have a painter.
That’s really the best argument he has. Yet he believes in a creator without a creator, so he does think it’s possible for something to exist without being created! So much for that argument.
The interview is really infuriating. I don’t understand how someone who talks about evolution so much can misunderstand it so badly. Maybe we could take a love offering and send him to a couple college biology classes?