I recently read an entry on the evolutionary biologist Jerry
Coyne’s blog (Why evolution is true) which discussed a recent film by the
Christian evangelist Ray Comfort (see here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/odious-ray-comfort-movie-watch-it-below-to-be-distributed-in-public-schools/). I was already aware of Ray Comfort, mainly
thanks to an absurd video he made in which he claims that the banana is a
nightmare for atheists because it is so well designed for mankind that it must
have been created by God (see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
as an aside, I particularly like it when Comfort says that almighty God has
made the banana with a non-slip surface). The latest offering from Comfort is
entitled “Evolution vs. God” and it can be split into two distinct sections.
The first section shows Comfort attempting to demonstrate that there is no
evidence for evolution, the second section turns into a forcefully manipulative
attempt to convert the interviewees (and thus any viewers) into Christians. You
can see the film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ.
I actually could write for quite some time about the whole
film, it is full of false statements, manipulated interviews, ridiculous
questions and erroneous assertions. However, I have decided to focus predominantly
on one aspect of the first section which involves the main attack on
evolutionary biology that Comfort makes. However, before I discuss the content
of the film, it’s important to note one thing: Ray Comfort is not interested in
understanding evolution, he is not open to learning about the overwhelming
evidence, and before any interviews took place he had already decided to reject
any evidence that was offered. For these reasons, it would be justifiable to simply
reject Comfort’s film due to its inherent bias, but I want to explain this in a
bit more depth as I know that superficially his approach can appear convincing.
Comfort wants to show the viewer that he is approaching
experts, and knowledgeable students, and that none of them can explain a good
reason (except faith) to believe in evolution. Comfort also wants to
demonstrate that none of the experts can provide a satisfying example of
evolution in action. Through the interviews shown, Comfort apparently demonstrates
the lack of evidence showing the transformation of ‘kinds’, which he deems the
only acceptable evidence for evolution. Because nobody can give an answer that
Comfort will accept, he suggests that this proves evolution is not supported by
the evidence. Comfort repeatedly points out that biologists have only
documented the change of organisms within their own ‘kind’, e.g. fish into other
fish or bacteria into other bacteria. Now, I don’t know if anyone asked him what
a kind was and it was thereafter cut from the final film (most probably) but this
is a vital question, how does Comfort define a ‘kind’? I know it is a term used
in the Bible, but what does it mean as a biological definition? I can give you
an answer: it is an indefinable and unhelpful term. Comfort says he isn’t
interested in the examples of observed evolutionary change provided to him,
because he only wants to know about a change in kinds. Comfort states this over
and over with such certainty and conviction that one might even believe that he
has a point; however, although Comfort believes he is striking a blow against
evolution, he is in fact making a meaningless statement which is of no consequence.
In biology we don’t ever refer to kinds, we use taxonomic
groupings which even today are based largely on the definitions established by
Carl Linnaeus in 1735. An example is shown in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: An
example of taxonomic classification. Each major taxonomic group is listed in
the coloured boxes, and the text to the right of each box lists the taxonomic
groups to which the leopard (Panthera
pardus) belongs.
If Comfort was challenged to state where a ‘kind’ fell in
the official system of classification, he could not answer. I expect he would
claim that birds are a kind, cats are a kind, dogs are a kind, fish are a kind
etc. But, cats and dogs belong to the same order of mammals (carnivora), so shouldn’t
they actually be the same kind? I don’t want to dwell on taxonomic
classification, especially as it may be unfamiliar to non-biologists, but I
feel this brief discussion is necessary to demonstrate how meaningless it is
when Comfort asks for evidence of a ‘change in kinds’. The evolutionary
transition between a bony-fish and a cartilaginous shark is actually huge, but
even if Comfort was shown the astronomically unlikely event of a shark evolving
into a trout before his eyes he would dismiss it as being only a change within
the ‘fish kind’; however, his assertion doesn’t match the classification which
biologists use which places sharks and bony fish in completely different
classes.
Comfort then goes further to claim that Darwinian evolution
= a change in kinds, but this is a definition he has created himself and is actually
incorrect. What Comfort is asking for is for someone to undertake an experiment
which shows a dinosaur evolving into a bird, or to show an early semi-aquatic four-limbed
creature (known as tetrapods) evolving into a mammal. These evolutionary
transitions took millions of years and clearly cannot be recreated for human
observers to directly witness, and Comfort knows that full well. Therefore, he
is asking for something which he already knows cannot be provided, and then he
essentially sits back smugly and says “see, I told you there is no evidence for
evolution”.
Comfort’s main point is that it is impossible to be sure
evolution has taken place because nobody was there to observe each evolutionary
change. Direct observation is just one type of evidence, and what Comfort
either doesn’t know, or more likely chooses to ignore, is that there is a mass
of genetic, palaeontological, geological and morphological evidence which
clearly shows that evolution has occurred. It is not possible for me to sum up
the evidence here, because it really is so overwhelmingly large and completely
unequivocal. Just because we didn’t see the evolutionary changes take place, it
doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence. We can infer what has happened over
evolutionary time by the masses of evidence that we do have. When every line of
evidence we have all points to the same conclusion, then we can be as certain
as possible that our conclusion is correct.
To demonstrate my point, consider the following scenario. I
put a male and female fish (both virgins) together in a fish tank with a supply
of food. I leave the tank unobserved for 6 months and when I return I now find
20 fish instead of 2. In this case I would have firm evidence that the male and
female had successfully reproduced, and even though this conclusion was reached
through inference, I doubt anyone would doubt its validity. However, if I were
using Comfort’s logic I would have to admit that I had no evidence that the two
fish produced offspring because I didn’t actually see the spawning of eggs and
the subsequent fertilisation of those eggs by the male. Comfort believes that
if nobody saw a process take place then you can’t be sure that it happened. My
point here is simple but important: we don’t have to physically witness an
event to have evidence that it has occurred. It doesn’t take much thought to
see the error of Comfort’s logic. My only hope is that one day he will see his
error and open his eyes to the evidence that he dishonestly claims he is
seeking.
I am aware of the length of this blog, so I think it’s best
to sum things up. The reason I wrote this piece was because I value the truth immensely.
People like Ray Comfort, no matter what their reasons are or how ‘good’ their
intentions might be, are deceiving people and spreading misinformation.
Comfort’s film aims to manipulate the audience into thinking the same way as he
does. In my opinion everyone should be encouraged to evaluate the evidence for
any given matter and come to their own conclusion independently. I wouldn’t
want anybody to accept evolution simply because I have said so, in fact I
encourage anyone who hasn’t done so to seek out the evidence for evolution
(openly and honestly). It is my genuine belief that anyone who investigates evolution
fully will be as fascinated and enthralled by it as I am. I suppose my
take-home message is that “Evolution vs. God” is a dishonest documentary (or
should I say anti-documentary?), and if you have seen it I encourage you to
critically analyse everything in it.
As always, thanks for reading and comments are very welcome.
