Last night the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the atheists was aired on ABC News Nightline. I commented on the portion of the debate that was posted on the website yesterday. Today I intend to rebut the atheist’s arguments in this post.
The atheists in the debate were introduced as Brianand Kelly. The impression that these unknown, non-scientists could overwhelm the star duo and professional evangelists Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, left the audience with the notion that anyone can disprove God using a little logic.
As a young earth creationist I was very disappointed in the Cameron/Comfort duo’s “scientific” arguments and (lack of) preparation to face atheistic counter-arguments. You can see more of my comments in yesterday’s post, Unprepared.
As promised in yesterday’s post, I’ll point out the flaws in the atheist’s argument.
Brian went first and said that the builder/painter used as a key element of Comfort’s argument can be called to ask if they built/painted something. My response would be to them, “Could you please get anyone from the Ming dynasty (builders of the Great Wall) or Michelangelo on the phone or at least their email addresses.” If he appealed to records and history to prove they existed and produced their masterpieces, then just as easily one could appeal to the sound historical legitimacy of Genesis 1. While Genesis is considered sacred by Christians, it has never been shown to be false in historical matters.
While this is not a scientific argument, Brianlamented that Christianity allowed for the possibility that hardened criminals and even Hitler could be in Heaven as long as they asked for forgiveness of sin and accepted Christ as Savior. Isn’t this the beauty of God’s grace? Jesus’ payment for sins was enough to forgive anything you’ve done. If Hitler can be saved (which, no evidence exists that he ever repented) then you can too. Your sins can be 4GiVn.
Brian went on to call his opponents anti-scientists. This is a common tactic by atheists, because it makes Christians appear to denounce scientific principles. Brian's arguments at the point have been debunked by numerous creation scientists
- “The eye is wired backwards.” If the eye was not designed as it is, you would
be blind. The eye was perfectly designed to exist in an environment that is
bombarded with ultraviolet radiation. If, as perceived the eye were to be
rewired forwards, the UV light would blind
- “Male nipples.” It could be just as easily argued that this is design efficiency. The same tissues in unborn humans exist before the reproductive organs take shape. So the existence of common tissue in unborn children is a feature of efficient development.
- “Snake Legs.” The loss of snake legs is questionable science in the first place. Secondly, is the loss of information really supposed to explain the massive GAIN in
complexity and information required for Darwinian evolution? The loss of legs/genetic information is better explained by a creation model, where we live
a once-perfect world that is continually getting worse through the compounded
effects of sin. (question to Brian – Can you give me even one example of an
organism gaining NEW genetic information, which increases complexity and
function, exclusively by natural processes as described by molecules to man
Surprisingly, and naively, Brian spins a yarn that atheists are more philanthropic and have contributed more good to the world than religious folk. I may do another entire posting about this one, but in short, Brian would be hard-pressed to prove that atheists do more good for the world than even one of these organizations: Compassion International, World Vision, Amor Ministries, Southern Baptist Missions, Interfatih Hospitality Network…The list could go on and on.
Lastly, Brian uses the word good and compassionate when referring to atheists. By what standard exactly can an atheist measure goodness? They have no reason to be compassionate. To an atheist, compassion is logically contrary to the idea of evolutionary doctrine. The weak and unfortunate simply pollute the gene pool and slow our evolutionary progress. Hitler’s entire genocidal program was motivated by a fully developed Darwinian conclusion.
Brian's partner, Kelly then took the stand and really offered only an amateurish rebuttal of the Christian duo. She redefined science as it is understood by materialists today rather than the root of the word which Comfort used. Her definition excludes anything beyond materialism. Thus, scientists who ascribe to this definition exclude any conclusion that natural science cannot explain (mind, love, beauty, design, reason).
Kelly mocked Comfort’s argument that one’s conscience guides them by suggesting that no one ever need to be taught anything if a conscience is real. The atheists suggested that Comfort is only a Christian because of his culture. If he’d been born in India, they claim, he’d be Hindu. But the search for something higher than ourselves is a powerful argument for the existence of God. He placed within each of us the desire to worship Him. Christianity is a record of this, and other world religions are misguided efforts to fill the need for Christ and His forgiveness of sin.
The only one of her other comments that is even worth disputing is her claim that, “Hitler was a devout Catholic.” This is absolute rubbish. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheist mass murderers, who were powerfully influenced by the anti-Christian conclusions of Darwinism.