We were awakened by the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™. Instantly alert, we rushed to the computer and were directed to an article in WorldNetDaily (WND) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. It’s in their honor that our jolly buffoon logo is displayed above this post.
The title of Comfort’s new article is ‘Beyond sane, intelligent doubt, evolution is fact’. As our knowledgeable readers may suspect from that title, Comfort’s subject is Richard Dawkins. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Few would argue that Richard Dawkins is the world’s most famous atheist, especially now that his friend and rival for the title, Christopher Hitchens, has now gone to meet his Maker. Few of his followers, however, realize what a weak foundation on which the professor rests his case, both for evolution and for atheism.
A creepy beginning, but one that promises oodles of stupidity. So we press forward:
He is a strong “believer” in evolution. If you ask most atheists if the theory of evolution has anything to do with a belief, however, they will tell you that it doesn’t. It’s not something that has to be believed. It is a “fact.”
It’s not surprising that Comfort’s concepts are hopelessly scrambled. He’s got evolution confused with atheism, and he doesn’t understand what belief is all about, although he trys to show that it’s Dawkins who lacks understanding. We’ll attempt to clarify things as we go along:
But let’s look closely at Prof. Richard Dawkins’ own words, and watch for his use of the word “believe” when it comes to the theory of evolution. He told The New York Times, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked).”
That’s one of our favorite quotes. We wrote a whole post about it (see Creationists: Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked). Comfort continues:
So, according to the professor, if you don’t “believe” in evolution, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. He would like everyone to believe in the theory. As far as he is concerned, to believe it is to be on the side of true science.
That’s not really what Dawkins says, and it’s obvious upon reading the full article in which he used those words. However, we must interrupt to discuss the use of the word believe when speaking of a scientific theory. Theories are, properly speaking, accepted because of their explanatory power, the verifiable data which supports them, and the absence of data which contradicts them. “Belief” (or disbelief) is more appropriate in the context un-evidenced, unverifiable, and untestable propositions, such as those found in theology. And while we’re discussing terminology, this is always worth reading: Evolution as Fact and Theory, by Stephen Jay Gould.
Sorry about that diversion; we couldn’t resist. Okay, back to comfort’s article:
But according to The New Yorker magazine (in 2012), “The percentage of Americans that believe in biological evolution has only increased by four percentage points over the last 20 years.” A June 2012 Gallup poll found 46 percent of Americans believe God created man, 32 percent believe humans evolved with God’s guidance and 15 percent believe in evolution alone. So the amount of believers in evolution alone is 15 percent and has only increased by 4 percent in the last 20 years.
Aaaargh!! Even if those poll numbers are accurate, they’re utterly irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. Comfort doesn’t grasp that and he never will; to him it’s all about belief. Here’s more:
Richard Dawkins has great faith in it. He is a true believer to a point of never doubting. He said, “Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.”
Again, Comfort’s grasp of the concepts is so retarded that it’s painful to read his article. We’re quite confident that Dawkins understands the difference between blind faith and informed acceptance. If he were ever confronted with verifiable evidence that contradicted the theory of evolution (e.g., the proverbial Precambrian rabbit), he would react appropriately. How would a pathetically stunted intellect like Comfort react if confronted by a contradiction? We have an example coming up. Get this:
When asked the question, “Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?” he didn’t correct the questioner and say that it wasn’t a belief. Instead he answered, “They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”
Note that there, in Dawkins’ own words, supported by evidence, is his statement that atheism and evolution aren’t “irrevocably linked.” He clearly states that atheism was his personal decision from his understanding of evolution, but he’s well aware that others don’t make that decision. How does Comfort react to this? As you will see, he reacts like an uncomprehending imbecile. Here it comes:
It was his faith in evolution that gave him understanding, and that led him to believe that there was no God. If I want to understand the laws of physics I have to first believe what I read about physics. I have to have faith in what I read.
What a maroon! If we disregard quote-mining, Dawkins is exceedingly clear that acceptance of evolution is not a mere belief. It’s intellectually mandatory (unless one is ignorant, stupid, or insane), whereas his atheism is optional. Yet Comfort somehow comes away with the notion that Dawkins insists one must have faith in science. And now, at last, we come to the end:
Faith is the first step to understanding. Either it’s the Word of an infallible God, the fallible words of men, or faith in what you personally believe. You’ve got to have faith in something. Believe me.
Comfort is truly beyond hope. There is no way to reason with him. One may as well attempt to reason with a mud hole. But he is entertaining — in small doses.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.