Kenneth R Miller on Kirk Cameron's release of an abridged version of Darwin's Origin

Before a packed house, Kenneth R. Miller delivered an excellent lecture on the intersection of evolution, religion, and American education as part of the UAB "First Thursday" Lecture Series at the Spencer Honors House. After the talk, he participated in an extended Q&A session. Here is one of the questions he discussed

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Kenneth R Miller
• Kirk Cameron
• Charles Darwin
• evolution
• science
• religion
• creationism
• Origin of Species

[methinxaweezil]

I can't think of a better person to do a "point-by-point dissection" of Ray Comfort.

[wimvandenberghe]

Agreed. A Christian debunking another Christian on a subject the latter calls part of an "atheistic worldview".

[procommenter]

IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.

[Ematched]

@lordnimr0d Yep. They read "with great wisdom comes great sorrow" as a reason to avoid learning anything science. Their argument necessitates ignorance for it to make sense.

It makes me sad that our education system has failed so many people.

[Ematched]

@lordnimr0d You know, I'm not sure. Check "Nightline - Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate."

If Kirk Cameron actually believes the crocoduck is an example of what we should see as a transitional form, he has serious psychological issues. Kirk either has no clue what he's talking about, or he is a fraud. Sadly, RRS represented the other side in the debate. If a scientist had been there, (s)he could've eductated the former-Growing Pains cast member on the actual process of evolution. I say frauds

[Ematched]

@lordnimr0d They really don't. C&C just dismiss science all together. The intro is pure propaganda.

Most of the "quotes" Comfort uses are rhetorical devices that he removed from the original context. Either he's a really bad reader, &/or he's a complete fraud. I think it's &.

[Ematched]

@lordnimr0d The only difference I found was the exclusion of Chapter VI: Difficulties on Theory. In doing so, Comfort can point out all of what scientists would refer to as areas for future research &/or areas that appear to refute the theory but actually do not, then Comfort can point out all of the problem areas as refutation of the theory, but he pawns it off as his own work.

I haven't gone through each chapter, but it doesn't look like he modified the individual chapters. No guarantees.

[Ematched]

@lordnimr0d Guess who snagged a copy of Comfort's version of Origin?

This guy.

Guess almost punched the guy handing them out for free on the sidewalk in rain?

This guy.

[Atriviality]

I think somebody with some literary tallent should write a book entitled, "Creationists: Lying Scum Exposed" and dedicate a whole chapter to Ray and his live in gimp Kirk.