This past Thursday, November 19, Living Waters Publications began distribution of 170,000 copies of a special edition of Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’. Nothing of Darwin’s text has been changed. However, this edition contains a message from Ray Comfort, founder of Living Waters Publications.
November 24, 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’. Living Waters Publications has determined to distribute these books to our country’s future doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators right where they are now, at the universities. (related topic)
The Living Waters Publications edition of Darwin’s theories contains a 50 page introduction by Ray Comfort. Ray is joined in his efforts by actor Kirk Cameron who became a member of Living Waters nearly 10 years ago. Mister Cameron discusses the project in a video that can be found on the home page at Living Waters Publications web site.
The project has not gone unnoticed by mainstream media. Though the response has been subdued in certain areas of the country, the project is receiving negative press and reactions, as should be anticipated.
Chicago Tribune stated, ‘Comfort’s introduction questions Darwin’s scientific findings and contends that Darwin was racist and Adolf Hitler took the theory of evolution to its “logical conclusions”.
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, a former Oxford University and University of California professor, as well as a leading spokesperson for Atheism made many overt and blanketed statements concerning Comfort’s addition to Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’. The obvious message was to ‘rip it out’. One of his not so obvious messages was to use the pages ‘for their intended purpose’.
If Comfort has nothing valuable to say in his introduction, why do certain people of the evolutionist agenda spew words as if they were meant to be toxic vapors?
The L.A. Times posted its obvious bias opposing Comfort’s and Cameron’s efforts.
The National Center for Science and Education(NCSE) has began their campaign to discredit Comfort by calling Comfort’s introduction to Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, ‘Bad Science, Bad History and Bad Theology’http
In a short visit to NCSE’s web page, you will get a sense of concern for these people as you note the headlines and see the smiles on the faces of people who choose to damn themselves.
To the atheist whose email referenced the Bible as a ‘fairytale’…. If the Bible is a 'fairy tale', it remained an expanding, cohesive 'fairytale' with prophecy recorded by many different people whom lived in different parts of the Middle East at different times, beginning near 1500B.C.. Most of the prophecies have been fulfilled. Hypothetically, if the Bible had been an orchestrated activity, spanning many different countries, people, languages and time, It should be a 'fairy tale' (your words) known not as the ‘greatest story ever told’. It should be recognized as the chief of all wonders. No man could have conducted the writing of these text. Only a true and living God could have orchestrated such a 'fairy tale' (your words) as the Bible’s composition. Those are your choices. The Bible is either a 'fairy tale' or it is real. Either way, The Bible points to the work of a true and living creator.
Comments
It's a bunch of rants by mentally ill or drug addled loons, stuck in the desert because decent folk wouldn't have them around. Among it's lessons are that it's ok to steal, sleep with your daughters, have slaves, and other fine "moral" tales. But it never, ever, says you should think for yourself.
It's a crutch for those who can't live life on it's own terms. Grow up.
God is coninuing to work in His creation. Evidence is all around us. We can choose to see or not to see. For me, it is more difficult in believing in the randomness of life and the coinsidence of Biblical truth.
This is by far the better life.
The problem is that this isn't meant to win over any hearts or minds, it is an out-and-out attack. This type of work isn't what the Bible calls us to do, this is what over-inflated egos would have us do.
One question though, why is creating something that can evolve beyond God's ability? Is it more impressive that he created every species individually or that he could create life in a single instance and allow it to become as varied and beautiful as the world could support, only directly intervening in life at a few instances.
Keep your superstition out of my science.
Actually, the alleged prophecies in the Old Testament which many Christians believe relate to Jesus do not. Thomas Paine made this clear with his essays found at the Deism site.
As a Deist, I believe evolution is part of the Designer's design. It makes sense and does not go against my God-given reason as the Bible and Koran do.
"people of the evolutionist agenda" I love the way right-wing gunners for theodemocracy subvert language... Is there a "people of the round earth agenda"?
According to Godwin's law, Comfort lost this one.
One wonders why, if this is truly "good news," evangelical efforts to convert people are so frequently packaged in disingenuous wrappings. Isn't deception simply another way of saying lying, one of the seven deadlies? If evangelicals are so certain of what they believe to be true, why not simply provide Darwin's work on its own merits and then raise questions about it? Telling folks up front what they should think about something they have not yet read does not evince a certitude about the response they feel readers of good conscience and average intelligence should come away with - it suggests just the opposite.
Bearing false witness for your religion: fail
Repent ye sinners! Repent!
I am curious as to which of those prophecies listed have been fulfilled? Also if fulfillment of prophecy is the measuring stick what does that say about prophecies from other non-christian sources?
The truth is that the 'proofs' offered by bible proponents are based on a pre-existing belief in the bible as the word of the judeic god. I would like to see something objective offered as proof for once.
People in ancient world had to believe in supernatural because they can't find reason for things that are out of their control. Today, with science, thing are more crystal clear. Unfortunately, too many people are still hanging on to that belief because they're afraid to think otherwise. It's alway, the fear of what the preacher (priest, parents, friends, etc.) has been telling them. Believe in God or you'll end up in hell. Open your mind people, we are living in the 21st century!
Christians who insist on creationism or intelligent design make all Christians look stupid. Why do Christians assume god would approve of ignorance?
"Origion" of Species???
Huh? Origion?
Gee, I wonder if maybe the plan to insert religion into science isn't getting just a bit too obvious.
"Origion of Species," what an evangelical slip!
I guarantee you this guy has some other dude's knuckle children running down the inside of his leg right now. He looks like he wants to chew the hemorrhoids right off of Kirk's wanghole. I wish there were a hell so that Jimmy here could spend eternity deepthroating his Christian puppetmasters. God bless.
The headline says it all. The poor sap in the suit humiliates himself.
Learn to spell sweetie, or at least use a spell check.
"Origion"! Thanks for the giggles ding-dong.
The spelling mistake is a metaphor for the entire bunch of crack pots. Those who deny science, truth, and knowledge, will always come across as, and indeed are, fools.
OLIVIA, ART AND GOD HEARTS DEEZ, I see Jimmy has been editing. Since the "i" and "o" are directly next to one another and Jimmy only misspelled 'origion' in the title, I will have to give him the benefit of doubt. Typo.
On another note, Cameron is a washed up actor who has been attempting to rejuvenate his career. It may be by pandering to bleeding hearts. I have never heard of Comfort.
OLIVIA, ART and GOD HEARTS DEEZ, ad-hominoms are a sign you really don't have an argument. You just dislike what is being said. Don't show the world your weaknesses. Have an argumet or don't post.
Sorry Justice, if the kid can't get his headline right, he is not worth reading. Hard to take some one seriously who makes such basic mistakes. This has nothing to do with religion, it is simply a point about credible journalism.
If you publish, you proof read. If you are too lazy or too dumb to catch a glaring typo in the headline, you are pretty much worthless.
IMHO
Art,
There you go again. Yeah, the kid did make a mistake. But, you are destroying your cause. The one reason I can not truly be an atheist, is I want a better quality of life. Christians are criticized for being hypocrits. Atheist don't have even a symbolic standard of love for anyone who does not meet their needs. That was one of Jimmy's points in the article. Anyone can be a jerk. You know what else? I'm too tired to do a spell check, especially since the message window is bouncing up and down as the letters rise and fall out of view. I think you can understand what I am saying.
Science put man on the moon. Religion crashed planes into buildings.
There is nothing in James' writing that says that you don't have the freedom to choose. I have noticed that the comments from the antigod individuals are nasty and costic. Is this the type of people you want to be?
The creation story told by science and evidence has unimaginable timescales, has cataclysmic forces forging elements in exploding stars, vast scope across 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars, and powerfully elegant evolutionary process forming life so vibrant and varied that it transformed the planet.
By contrast, there is not one word in Genesis that couldn't be understood by a wandering desert tribesman 3000 years ago.
By contrast to the story of science, the story of the Bible is miniscule and a little sad. Why are so many people satisfied with this simplistic story, when reality presents a much more awe-inspiring picture of our origins?
Is it fear of the thought that we might be alone? Is it fear that we might have sole responsibility for our race and our planet?
I prefer not to bury my head in the sand of those ancient desert tribesmen, but rather to look with an open mind at what our TRUE origins can tell us about our future.
The following is an excerpt from a letter signed by over 12,000 Christian CLERGY:
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. "
Full letter and all signers are found by googling "Butler College Clergy Letter"
James - you may be happy "transmitting ignorance to our children", but most Christians are not. Perhaps you should speak with some of the clergy on this list.
This is insane. Creation has never and will never be science. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just plain wrong. Anyone who could possibly believe in the flood is ignorant and childish.
dannypantsgm,
It is difficult to see what side of the argument you are on, by your statement.
Creation is not science sounds like a creationist's argument. No flood records sounds like atheism.
Isn't one of the Commandments not to steal? How do you justify Comfort's plagiarism (stealing of someone else's work) in that introduction?
Doesn't another condemn lying? How do you justify Comfort's lies about Darwin?
Since you creationists see fit to blatantly violate your own beliefs, why should we believe ANYTHING you say?
pastafarian,
Plagiarism only exist when one uses another's work and assuming credit for it. If you read anything about copy write laws, you may find some guidelines that say how long copy writs are in effect. probably 100yrs. I seem to recall having read that in one of the link s on the page.
Nick,
I can give you a few prophecies simple enough to make sense of.
1. The star appearing over Bethlehem announcing the birth of a king. The three Magi followed prophecy to locate this "new born King". Only he never became an Earthly King in the context you know it.
2. Crucifixion of the messiah was prophecied 400 years before Jesus was crucified. What makes it interesting is, the Jewish Law did not permit execution by crucifix when the prophecy was given. It was not even a method known to them.
3 The Messiah would come from David's lineage. Mary was of the lineage of David.
Those are just three out of hundreds.
I am not educated in statistics and I do not have all of the information to calculated odds, if I were a statistician. But I can say just for these three prophecies to be fulfilled by the same man would be a miracle.
There is a book called "Evidence that demands a verdict". There is so much evidence it took two volumes to provide it for a case.
Hey people,
I think Jim sent me a link to this conversation because he knows I can't resist a good debate/argument.
Evolutionists, in this chain I have yet to see anybody address Jim's arguments. A number of you are attacking Jim's intelligence, character, and spelling (it's a typo; it happens).
Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies and indicate a weak position.
Nick, if you would like to see some objective evidence for the validity of the Bible, I recommend Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Both of the authors are former atheists who were fairly hostile to Christianity but then researched the evidence before and against Christianity and the Bible before they chose to believe.
For those who would like to look at the objective evidence for a Creator, check out The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. The chapters cover several topics (cosmology, biochemistry, physics) and end with a reading list.
As I was saying, check out the evidence for and against creation, the Bible, ... etc. before you make up your minds. I make a point of reading books by atheists to see if they can come up with compelling arguments. This past year I've read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and Letter to a Christian nation by Sam Harris. I find, while they make some valid points about the inconsistency of believer's lives with what they profess to believe, they don't do a good job of disproving the beliefs themselves.
Have a good one.
Craig
I found a typo in my first entry. I meant "for", not "before".
Court, I'm not talking about plagiarizing Darwin - he's in the public domain.
Comfort clearly plagiarized Stan Guffey's 'A Brief History of Charles Darwin' in his introduction - look it up.
Craig, you make a fundamental logical flaw by assuming if someone believes in evolution they must therefore be an atheist. And the only 'argument' I see from Leasure is that since his interpretation of the specific translation of the incomplete remnants of the original Scriptures doesn't allow for evolution, it therefore must be false.
That's not an argument, it's simply a statement that the believer refuses to even consider evidence to the contrary.
Pastafarian,
I was addressing two issues I saw in the conversation: the validity of the Bible and the evolution vs. creation debate. I did not mean to imply that all who believe in macroevolution as the explanation for the varieties of life are all atheists. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is a Christian and believes in macroevolution. Pope John Paul II didn't have a problem with macroevolution as I recall. No doubt, there are plenty of others.
You're right Jim didn't present arguments about evolution or creation. I didn't read the entire conversation or his article (he told me about it in church yesterday). I assumed he made some controversial statements based on the rather negative comments people posted. Mea culpa. Thanks for the correction.
Craig
Hi Craig,
thanks for joining the discussion. I have stayed out of it, as you can see. There are some attacks on me. People seem to not understand, I am reporting. Not arguing a case.
Interesting, I recommended to Nick he read one of the books you advised on.
People generally do not hang out on this page for exchanges. Check back, it could happen.
Next up, I will post some answers from a Muslim to some questions that were raised last week.
Jim,
Regarding your prophecies:
1) Only Matthew refers to the star, not Luke. And the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote many many things to make Jesus look like the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. However, many of the prophecies he refers to had NOTHING to do messiah prophecies. Hosea was about the Exodus, not about Jesus. Jeremiah was about the Babylonian Exile, not Jesus.
You're just believing exactly what the author of Matthew wanted you to believe. Too bad that Luke disagrees with Matthew on almost every single detail about Jesus's birth. They agree on 3 things: the names of Mary and Joseph, Bethlehem, and the virgin birth. No other details are in common.
2) The crucifixion was NOT prophesied. The Psalm of David is talking about someone in the story, it is not giving prophecy of the messiah. And the pierced hands and feet are as if from animal bites, not nails.
....
...
3) Matthew and Luke both gave lineages back to David to make it look like Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Too bad they disagree almost completely. And, I know you really want to explain this difference by saying Matthew is talking about Mary's lineage, but that is simply not what the words say - in any language. Both explicitly say they are tracing Joseph's lineage.
If you are the only one writing about an event, and you want to make it look like fulfillment of some earler prophecy, you can add in all sorts of details to make the event match the prophecy. That's exactly what Matthew did, and the fact that his examples are not confirmed by any other source (including Luke) should give any rational person pause.
I know, faith isn't rational.
But there is not a single example of a fulfilled prophecy in the Bible that can't be easily explained as post-hoc reasoning and liberal re-writing of history.
Read Prof. Bart Ehrman to learn something about the Bible.
O.k., Rick K.
You have your mind made up. However, I still believe what I believe. You have the same choice.
My mind is always open to change based on facts, not based on faith. I changed from faith in Genesis to acceptance of evolution based on evidence. My understanding of the Bible comes from clearly presented examples and evidence. Prof. Ehrman lost his faith based on evidence.
An open mind is one that can change, given new evidence.
I can list a LOT of data that would make me doubt or even reject evolutionary theory.
Can you list ANY evidence that would shake your faith in the divine authorship of the Bible?
Whose mind is "made up"?
I don't see that Mr. Leasure is stating that he believes in evolution or doesn't. He is reporting what is being done in the Christian community. Not all Christians are anti evolution. However most of us believe that
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
We also believe in forgiveness of sins through Jesus and have a belief in eternaty.
Rick K.
My mind is made up. Authorship of the Bible would have to be divine if I believe in such prophecy and fulfillment of prophecy as I previously stated I did. You offered an opinion stating that the prophecy of crucifixion was not about Jesus. What I had said to you is the Jews of the time period in which the David records the prophecy, did not use hanging or crucifixion. For David to record that as a tale does not fit in the Jewish style of execution. That is why, I can say it is future prophetic.
I can not list many things I don't agree with in the Bible. I've done enough work in my Christian faith to find answers for what I once felt to be a contradiction or an inconsistency.
There are Bibles that do add scripture in small amounts. I do not appreciate that without explanation.
Non-living matter has never been observed creating living matter.
Never has a creature been observed giving birth to an entirely new species. Never. It simply does not exist in the fossil record. Nor at any time in recorded history. Therefore, evolution is an unsupported theory at best and a grown man’s fantasy at worst.
Macro-evolution is a fantasy: fish->amphibian->reptile->rodent->ape->human being. No proof.
If macro-evolution were true, there would be as many intermediate species as there are “completed” species in the fossil record. In fact, there would be more intermediate species than “completed,” since “completed” is the final form, but it would take thousands, if not millions, of intermediates to reach the “completed” form. However, proof of intermediates does not exist. What exists is speculation that some creatures may be intermediates due to physical similarities. Again, not proof. There are physical similarities between animals today! Evolution = FANTASY.
Mark,
That was a well thought out and stated opinion. Thanks.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!