The free exchange of ideas
Nothing frightens Richard Dawkins more (apparently) than another youtube fiasco or another Ben Stein interview on a wider scale. Imagine if he had to debate Jonathan Sarfati in open debate in front of a huge audience? Imagine if he had to present facts rather than make grandiose claims that he knows he cannot support? Like the kid who brags to his friends about how he could beat up the guy who lives on the next street but skulks a block out of his way to get home without seeing the said bloke, Dawkins and Myers make scathing remarks about creationists like Sarfati but make sure they stay far away from him.
The vast majority of Darwinists are religious zealots who probably know little of what they maintain to be true, like actors reading lines to a play they do not understand. Having had the same fifty-seven lies repeated to you over and over will make them believable to you and eventually you accept them as yours and protect them like the soft underbelly of your heart. Many of you reading this will not understand why I say this, for you have not read the comment threads and been assaulted by the drumbeat of Darwinist propaganda there. But if you read things and watch things on the television and go to movies and listen to the radio you have been inundated by them anyway, perhaps not quite as clearly or as stark-naked of evidence as you read them here.
Mr. creeper saith: ""Scientists do not lie. Scientists do not rant. Scientists properly ask questions during a question period, briefly and clearly, and make sure others have a turn. Anti-scientists must lie because they have nothing truthful to report, and they do their best to make sure that no one else has a chance to reveal the fact that all they have to report are superstitions, frauds, and forgeries"
Well, here we are. You've been asked questions and you've been given ample opportunity to respond.
Here are the questions again, just to make sure you're clear on this:
1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?
2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?
3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?
It's pretty hypocritical that a man who makes such a big deal out of other people not choosing to engage him regarding evidence is unable to come up with evidence to support his own position.
You've defaulted, Mr. Mastropaolo.
Sarfati’s new book rattles the cages of the atheistsby Gary Bates, CEO, CMI–US
Published: 12 August 2010 (GMT+10)This article first appeared in a CMI newsletter in June 2010
A few months ago, the Global Atheist Convention called The Rise of Atheism was being held in Melbourne, Australia. It featured heavy-hitters of the atheist/humanist movement in the world today, including scientists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. Some months before, our Australian office asked the organizers if they would be willing to pit the best amongst them against some of the world’s leading creationists from CMI in a creation/evolution debate. The offer was rejected in a torrent of insults and invectives, particularly from Myers and his followers, (read World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge). So CMI decided to arrange its own conference in the same city, same weekend. Attendees in the packed auditorium were visibly excited and motivated to see that there are answers to the claims of such rabid antitheists. (See Countering the Rise of Atheism.)
CMI’s conference was also the launch of a very important book by our own Dr Jonathan Sarfati, called The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. As you can glean from the title, it is a response to the recently released magnum opus by the Oxford professor Dawkins called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Dawkins’ book is touted as presenting the best evidences for evolution—and long ages—in one volume. Jonathan’s response, in the short time it has been released, is proving to be a sensation. Jonathan documents how Dawkins uses fallacious and straw man arguments in an attempt to discredit creationists. (Remember, Dawkins is the one who suggested that teaching creation was equivalent to child abuse.) But the main reason The Greatest Hoax? is making an impact is because it demonstrates that creationists have a very sound grasp of the science, despite claims to the contrary. Tony D. emailed Dr Sarfati and said (of one chapter):
“But of course you showed a consummate ease in dealing with origin of life issues. Abiogenesis is right up your alley as a chemist and it shows. Thanks once again for the many hours of hard work you must have put into this book for the benefit of the saints.”
So why the flea?When Prof. Dawkins became aware of our response, he called it the latest ‘flea’. Dawkins is quite fond of being called ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ (in Darwin’s day, evolutionary promulgator Thomas Huxley was called ‘Darwin’s bulldog’). Dawkins’ self-image of being the ‘big dog’ of evolution, being pestered by no more than a flea (Sarfati) displays all the arrogance of some sort of intellectual superiority. We’ve noticed this increasingly agitated and hostile attitude towards creationists by the followers of Dawkins and Myers et al, and what followed on Dawkins’ blog was a ‘hatefest’ of spiteful comments aimed at Dr Sarfati, such as:
“To his credit the one thing that Sarfati does undertand [sic] is about being stupid. He’s in a world class lead there.”In commenting about Jonathan’s world-class chess credentials, one wrote:
“Afterwards, Bonzo the chimp took on 98 creationists simultaneously and beat them all in 7 moves while the creationists were trying to figure out why there are two different colors on the board and why the bishop wasn’t in charge.”And others on his book:
“There are probably just a bunch of blank pages in there except for the first page that says, ‘God did it’. Now wasn’t that much easier than doing science?”
“If I dismiss this book without reading it then I am as closed minded as religious people who refuse to read Mr Dawkins’ book.”1
It’s ultimately a spiritual battle—but the science is importantThe point of highlighting this is because it demonstrates the crying need for informing people about origins. It’s obvious that the skeptics are criticizing what they don’t understand, often because they’ve never been exposed to alternative information before. Sometimes a well-meaning Christian friend has given them amateur/misinformed arguments for creation, which only hardens their stance. This is why your continued support is vital. It changes lives by allowing our staff to produce such excellent resources like The Greatest Hoax? (see the enclosed special sheet) and it also allows us to continue ministry outreach so we can disseminate information and overcome prejudice. Lyle L. understood this when he wrote of this new book:
“I couldn’t put the jolly thing down, it was FANTASTIC. … But it’s just so WONDERFUL to see that Dawkins is rebutted so comprehensively in this book. CONGRATULATIONS and a huge thank you to everyone at CMI who put in the big effort to get this book out so quickly. I can’t tell you how much of an encouragement this is to me.”Most of all please continue to pray for all our staff, even those who answer the phones and receive similar comments to above. Thanks for standing with us.
, 15 April, 2010. Return to text.