Comforting the Masses, August 2013

Recently an old friend of mine, upon seeing me post about finally finishing The Origin of Species, suggested that I take a look at a video by Ray Comfort, Evolution vs. God.  Reluctantly, I did so. 

The video seems to be created by Ray Comfort in an interview-style on the UCLA campus.  He does the following:

• Interviews Students
• Led to believe they are mostly students in a science-related discipline
• All seem to be portrayed as agnostic or atheist
• Main Interviews
• PZ Meyers
• Craig Stanford
• Gail Kennedy
• Peter Nonacs

Main Interview

During the video, Ray repeatedly seems to come back to the question:  Can you give me one example of Darwinian Evolution, where one kind evolves into another kind.  While he doesn’t define kind, he does provide minor clarification that suggest that he thinks kinds are people, cats, fish, or bacteria.  Biologists use, as best as I can tell, 8 classifications for different kinds of animals:

• Life
• Domain [proposed classification]
• Kingdom
• Phylum
• Class
• Order
• Family
• Genus
• Species

Ray comfort’s definition of kind is unspecified.  I believe it is biblical and likely difficult to match to any formal classification.  If we start with Humans, or the species Homo Sapiens, we probably get up to Hominidae before we have a group containing what Ray Comfort likely would consider different kinds.  This is at the Family level and our Family contains Gorilla and Chimpanzees.  So a change in kind, as far as I can tell, is a change in Genus within this example.  But I also expect there will be places even this will break down and we will be back at the species level.  I doubt anyone who rejects evolutionary theory on the basis of religious conviction would classify Homo Sapiens as the same "Kind" as anything else, even though there are other species in the same Genus as Homo Sapiens.  To accommodate that view, a change in species must be equivalent to a change in kind.

The problem here is the word Darwinian.  If what is wanted is an example of Darwinian evolution, showing one kind turning into another, this is not cats, birds, or fish.  Because if it is Darwinian evolution, it is defined by Darwin.  And Darwin uses that word 83 times in The Origin of Species.  Darwin uses it to refer to variation among similar things (such as “each kind of squirrel”, and “each kind of grouse”).  A change from one species to another is Darwinian Evolution.  Ray comfort seems to be misleading people with this video into thinking “Darwinian Evolution” is something that it is not, whether that is due to incompetence or malice is not knowable by me.  I believe it is the latter, but I can’t truly know.  What I can know is that the information is not seemingly presented competently and lovingly, and this is what a high-profile Christian apologist should be.  Anything short of that damages.

At 7:15 in the video Ray Comfort asks PZ Meyers “Could you give me an example of Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change in kinds”.  In doing so he defines a “change in kind” as “not speciation”, at which point you are left not really understanding his point.  If a change in species is not a change in kind, then Humans (Homo Sapiens) are the same Kind as Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Rudolfensis, and Homo Habilis.  If speciation is a change in kind, which it necessarily must be to ensure uniqueness of the Homo Sapien kind, then the examples that Comfort is given by the interviewees are examples of a change in kind.

Whether one can agree this is a change in the poorly defined kind, one must realize that they actually are great examples of Darwinian evolution.  The lines that we draw between species, genus, families, orders, kingdoms - these lines are all arbitrary human constructs.  The difference between two species of bacteria are minor genetic differences that cause physical and behavioral differences between unique individuals that are classified by humans as members of these two respective species.  The difference between a cat and a dog are the same - there are just more differences.

The question that should be asked of Ray Comfort is, "Can you give me one data point that is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory?"

Choice of Interviewees

Several people, apparently students, are interviewed.  These appear to just be filler.  They are students, so I am not sure what we are supposed to get from them.  If you want to attack evolutionary theory, choose experts, not students.  And if you are going to choose students, shouldn’t they at least be biology students?  But many weren’t.  There were physicists, chemists, environmental scientists, and geologists.  Should anyone be surprised that it is easy to stump an uneducated geologist with a difficult biological question?

Cheap Tricks

As is typical, several cheap tricks appear to have been used to attain a persuasive argument. 

Editing

When watching the film I felt as if I was only getting small snippets of the conversations.  For example, at 6:27, PZ Meyers is shown saying “Human beings are still fish.”  But what we don’t see is the immediate conversation leading up to that statement, or what followed.  This left me not really understanding the point because that ability was prevented by the editing of the film.  I suspect most of the audience, at least most of the target audience, is left thinking that P.Z. Meyers does not know what he is talking about.  However, a little time on his Blog Pharyngula should show otherwise.  Showing only part of the story is a way to make the story be the story you want, not the truth.  “Not the truth”, in my mind, is a form of lying.

P.Z. Meyers has claimed publicly that he was taken out of context on his blog post (abridged):

[Ray Comfort] would a) ask for evidence, b) I would give him an example (like the research on sticklebacks or bacteria), c) Comfort would raise an irrelevant objection (they’re still fish! They’re still bacteria!), and d) I would explain why his objection was invalid, and how his expectations of the nature of the evidence were wrong. Somehow, though, in the movie (d) always ended up on the cutting room floor, so that he could announce in all of his promotional materials and in the movie itself that I was unable to provide any evidence for evolution.

That last bit is a lie. That’s not what respectable video producers do. An honest presentation of our interview would say that PZ Myers presented evidence for evolution, but in Ray Comfort’s opinion, it was not adequate…not, “all these scientists were unable to present evidence for evolution!”

This was in response to this post by Ray Comfort (abridged):

So PZ, you were of course "selectively edited" (as was every person in the movie), but I have to protest when you accuse me of misrepresenting you.

In this statement Ray Comfort asserts his edits did not misrepresent PZ Myers.  This could easily be cleared up by Ray Comfort providing the unedited video, which I have found multiple requests for online.  He can do a lot better than a non-proven assertion, but he appears not to.  This lack of easily-provided evidence is one of the causes of my belief that this is deception by Ray Comfort.

Stop/Green Light

Ray Comfort asks people to spell “shop”, then asks them what they do at a green light.  The people shown say “stop”, understandably so.  I believe the intent to this part of the video is to convince the audience that these “experts” are unintelligent.  Be this so, please do not fall for this.  There are many ways to trick the human brain.  Using a trick like this tells you more about Ray Comfort than it does the interviewees that fell for it.  I suspect that everyone was asked, and only those that “failed” were shown in the final video.

My Thoughts

I can not know what is in Ray Comfort's heart and mind.  I can only do as we all can only do: formulate my beliefs based on the evidences I am presented.  I believe Ray Comfort has an agenda.  In this video, it appears that he attempts to use people who disagree with his agenda to mislead Christians into thinking something about the state of Evolutionary theory that is not true, and that I believe he knows is not true.  I believe this based on my perception that he is a professional at this.  I believe he is lying.  I believe what he is doing damages Christians, and is against the teachings of what he claims to follow.

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers”. –Proverbs 6:16-19