of course, i'm not convinced that he is the same species. homo sapiens have large brains and substantial cognitive functioning. while Comfort does have the ability to speak, which sets him apart from other animal species, he seems to be lacking the cognitive abilities that the majority of humans have attained.
my hypothesis is that evolution is alive in well in humans today. we know that mutations will come along - some good, some bad - which will survive should they present an advantage to survival. this doesn't mean all humans will necessarily evolve to get better. Comfort's mutation may be allowing him to thrive amongst others in his devolved species (let's call them Homo Estupidis).
the ability to deny what is patently obvious to most is the key feature among Homo Estupidis'. it could be due to a diminished frontal lobe, or maybe due to a cantaloupe being in place where the brain should be. i favor the latter explanation. in fact, let's change their name again to Homo Cantaloupis. yes, i like that better.
of course, it's entirely possible that Comfort is simply acting the part of king of the Cantaloupes, selling his product to the religious rubes who are dying for someone to articulate what they are incapable of doing on their own. someone who is willing to make an ass of himself in public to spout their religious quackery. (i do wonder what Comfort would have said had someone asked him not about the tailbone, but about the occasional actual human tail.)
but i prefer to think that Comfort and his ilk are simply devolved humans. it's much less embarrassing for the rest of OUR species.
Of course anyone is free to challenge the conclusions of science, which are always open to revision in the light of new evidence, but to do so effectively you must first understand what the scientific statements are, what the evidence for them is, and in attempting refutation you must play fair.
Ray Comfort does not meet these conditions. He passed out free copies of Darwin's Origin with four chapters and the introduction missing. He put in place his own biased introduction. He probably thinks that in defending his religious convictions any kind of dishonesty is fair, but in fact that dishonesty shows how hollow his own convictions are.
i'm pretty sure Comfort is a huckster. Kirk Cameron may be a true believer, but Comfort has some actual signs of, dare i say, intelligence. he has original thoughts and doesn't just parrot things he's heard or read on AIG. it's all nonsense of course, but it takes some smarts to invent your own material. and he can improvise. with that i have to think he knows better yet knows he has a product he can sell.
If that is so, he is a truly despicable person. In fact, it is exactly this type of charlatan I hold the most contempt for.
It will be entertaining though when he gets his a$$ handed to him someday in a very public way.
agreed. which is why i wrote the discussion to begin with - frankly i was just so pissed off about him that i really wanted to call him less than human, but in a nice(ish) way. i was falsely giving him the benefit of the doubt. this guy is a charlatan and i hope he does get what's coming to him. why can't there be a hell??!! lol
I suspect that televangelists and others of their ilk are snake-oil salesmen, in it for the money. That may not be entirely fair, but so many have been exposed that it's close enough for Comfort.
In The Republican Brain, author Chris Mooney deals with both strengths and weaknesses of both conservatives and liberals.
Too briefly, conservatives have commitment and liberals have openness; having both can help.
BTW: "It is much easier," Mooney says near the end of Chapter Five," to get a liberal to behave like a conservative than to get a conservative to behave like a liberal." Citing Scott Eidelman and colleagues at the University of Arkansas, Mooney says alcohol helps, adding, "It's kind of like dosing yourself with the need for closure."
Openness brings discomfort to Ray Comfort.
It's difficult to intermingle potentials for conservativism and liberalism with religiosity. While the tendancy for liberals is to associate liberalism with more rational and objective thinking, there are many liberals who are far from atheists or agnostics. Michael Moore comes to mind. I do enjoy his books and films, and I do share his convictions on most things secular, but when he breaks into his Catholicism I want to puke.
Michael Moore's work has earned him a few citizenship medals, IMO.
If his Catholicism resulted from a Catholic education, as mine did, you will need all the puke your tummy can make.
Using a chain metaphor, Catholicism wraps chains around kids' minds and somehow buries those chains too deeply for reason to reach. It's why so many Catholics can ignore Church teachings and remain Catholic.
Trauma can reach Moore's chains and he is inviting people more powerful than he to give him a sufficient amount of the necessary trauma.
I'm currently reading his momoir Here Comes Trouble, and there are some fascinating stories in there. It's quite obvious that he is not the run of the mill Catholic, but it's no secret that he publicly maintains that he is a Catholic. At times in the book he exposes some fairly deep reverence for the major aspects of the Catholic doctrine, which makes me want to scream. The fact that such a higher intelligence has the capacity to be infiltrated with the obvious lies of religion is scary.
guess he's hating these chaps too:
nice try on the organized crime in NZ cover.. mr. bs comfort
Any evolutionary biologist could tell you that Ray Comfort is cherrypicking the evidence in a big way.
I had a friend back in the 80's who was very Christian. I remember someone among his circle of friends speaking admiringly of Ray Comfort: "what courage that man has, to go right out there and promote the gospel in public"
My friend was a smart guy, he went to Caltech - computer science major. He never talked about any beliefs he might have had about evolution, miracles etc. - yet he went to this heavy-duty science school. He would have had to take various science classes in order to graduate.
I never questioned him about whether he believed in evolution, whether he was a Young Earther, etc. I thought of his faith as a matter of emotions and politics.
And he might have avoiding thinking about such conflicts, because of the cognitive dissonance it would cause.
Maybe the fundamentalist Christians were less overt about their fringe scientific theories back then. That was in the 80's.
That's what those beliefs are, you know - fringe scientific theories. Many consider them outside the scope of criticism, as religious beliefs. That helps them to persist.