They plan to had out published copies at the 'Top 50' research institutions in the US. Cameron in a video mentions he will come to a local university personally (here at UCSB? UCLA? I'm not sure what "local" is to Mr. Cameron).
Apparently, Richard Dawkins has been involved in getting the word out to evolutionists to expect this, kudos to him and his crew for doing that.
I personally disagree with the plan of action I'm told Dawkins' camp is promoting (I haven't confirmed that he is actually promoting this). That plan entails obtaining as many copies of the book as possible and removing the Comfort introductory propaganda.
In my opinion, this is not a good strategy. It seems that this could look desperate, as if scientists actually have something to worry about (when it comes to the facts of evolution, we do not have to worry), and it looks like book burning or censoring.
Instead, I think a concise pamphlet refuting the bogus claims of the introdution would be outstanding. It could have references and web links, and could also expose what I see as the breathtaking inanity of Comfort and Cameron's crusade against critical, rational thinking.
It would be great if someone like the NCSE were involved. Time is short and an organized response would nice.
Below, I attach an email that was sent around here at UCSB, which includes web links to some of this stuff:
Colleagues,
We all loved Kirk Cameron on Growing Pains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vo2i3NFq78&feature=related
Years later we were amused and perhaps a bit alarmed at his
'Origin of the Banana' video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
(That's Ray Comfort there with him)
But in November of 2009 he and Ray Comfort are taking it to the
next level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN9zpf5cT0M
The Important thing for us: *THIS GIVE AWAY WILL HAPPEN AT
UCSB! On November 19th!
*
Richard Dawkins has proposed a strategy: Collect as many of these
books as possible, remove the 50 page intro and donate the copies
to schools, libraries, or the whoever
(http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=155609217391)
We can stick with this strategy or come up with something else but
we should do *SOMETHING*
Basically we need to get organized if they are coming here. Ready
with information &/or to get these books. Ready with pamphlets
answering his questions or just trying to keep them off campus?
*Who would be into meeting within the next couple of weeks to
start to get ourselves organized?*
If you are not ready for action now here are some highlights from
Comfort's 50 page Intro:
1) So, even though we share 96 percent of our genetic make-up with
chimps, that does not mean we are 96 percent chimp. Be careful you
don’t fall for the illogic of this “evolutionary proof,”
2) here are some interesting questions for the thinking
evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why?
3) You’ve probably been led to believe that the first simple
creatures had rudimentary eyes, and that as creatures slowly
evolved their eyes evolved along with them. however, that’s not
what scientists have found.
3 comments:
My homeschool parent's group were talking about magnetometer high school science fair projects when one of the parents brought this news item up for discussion. I think the big mistake that many Christian homeschool parents make about the evolution/creationism debate is that they fail to truly understand what evolution is and how it works. They turn a blind eye to what evolution is and this makes them rely too heavily on creationist views, which rely on faith instead of evidence.
I think perhaps a better strategy would be to co-opt the KJB, add a page stating that the persons and events depicted bare no relation to any real events nor persons living/dead and that it is often regarded as a work of fiction.
Totally disagree with KJB strategy - sounds too much like we equate "Origin" with the Bible.
I am voting for short pamphlet idea - the kids getting the book are not looking to support creationism, they are exactly the people who need to be learning the counterarguments to common creationist fallacies.
Post a Comment