The Atheist Blogger

Ray Comfort has issued an apology for his banana video in which he described how the banana had certain features that made it appear designed, insinuating the “designer” was the Judeo-Christian God. As you will see when watching the “apology” below, it doesn’t cover Ray coming up with a bad argument; it is more of an excuse, blaming atheists for editing the original video to appear out of context.

The video presents some very bad logic in the first 30 seconds, when it tries to explain the “bananaman” reference:

“Bananaman” is a reference to an illustration presented by Comfort, in which he compared the complex design elements of a coke can to the complex design elements of a banana, in order to demonstrate that thoughtful design by an a designer is required for both examples. (0:20 -- 0:35)

Ray wants us to believe that God made the banana, but even knowing this is untrue (at least in regards to the modern banana) all it does is prove what we know already; that certain things in the world are the result of human intervention. Whilst it is true that the banana is a product of design, the same cannot be said if you replaced the banana with a wild blackberry, which is perfectly edible, very sweet, and not the product of human intervention. Replace the blackberry with something like the pineapple or the coconut, and you immediately have to start questioning the sanity of the “designer” Ray implies on such things. Pineapples and coconuts have to be some of the hardest fruits to get into, not to mention the amount of preparation needed before eating.

When you do not know the process in which certain things are created, you cannot compare them to things of which the creation process is known. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the creation process of the wild banana is partially known, and we refer to it as the theory of Evolution. This doesn’t explain the entire process of the banana creation, but it certainly gives a mechanism for understanding how it could have possibly come about. This is a far greater explanation than the idea that “God did it” which has no evidence and holds no grounds in proper scientific debate.

Ray presents to us his often-repeated lie that atheists somehow misrepresented his point in the banana video:

However, atheists removed the coke can from the video version, and sent it across the internet, saying that Comfort believed the banana was conclusive proof of God’s existence, missing the point of the illustration completely. (0:42 -- 0:55)

You see this simply contradicts the last point, as Ray admits that the comparison was to show that a designer is needed for both coke can and banana. In the original video (even in the edited version which only shows the banana) Ray mentions God as the creator of the banana, and he also mentions the coke can in comparison. His exact words were:

Now if you go to the top of the banana, you’ll find as with the soda can makers, they placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top.

Implying that there must be a designer, and then stating that the designer is God, therefore proving God’s existence seems to be exactly what Comfort had in mind. If Ray had not mentioned God as the designer, then he may actually have a point about not trying to prove God’s existence, but as soon as he said “so God has placed a tab at the top” he left the realm of speculation and entered the realm of certainty.

They also said that the banana had been modified over time by man to fit in the palm of the hand, and not by God (0:55 -- 1:02)

Well yeah, that’s because it has been. This intervention is very well documented.

But in their effort to make him look foolish, atheists gave Ray Comfort and international platform for his message. (1:03 -- 1:09)

Effort? I think you’ll find Ray does enough to make himself look foolish without us there to help. Anyone with a (to quote Ray) “brain that works” can tell his arguments are weak, and his views on science are stuck in the middle ages. The number of times simple scientific concepts have to be explained to him reveals his as the willingly ignorant fool that he is. Now for his “apology”:

Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand.” (1:31 -- 1:50)

So once your original premise is destroyed, you simply move the goalposts back a bit? Nice work Ray, but while this “truth” might be logical to your warped mind, you don’t give any evidence that God exists to give us this knowledge. In fact, since your original reason for using the banana argument was to show that certain things must have a designer, and that the designer of the banana is God, I fail to see how you can simply assert God exists when your argument for him via the banana was so utterly destroyed. I can do the same thing see: My car was designed, and the designer was God, therefore God exists. What’s that? My car was designed by Ford? Well…God gave Ford the knowledge and the materials to design the car in the first place! It isn’t a proof if you have to assume God exists for the proof to work.

Ray also leaps on the chance to misquote Richard Dawkins in the film “Expelled”, claiming he thinks aliens seeded life on this planet.

In “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed”, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, ‘What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?’ he answered,

‘at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.’ (2:17 -- 3:22)

The beginning of this quote is left out, and the full thing reveals some vital clues to Dawkins’ explanation, specifically the words “It could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere…”. This clearly shows that Dawkins is speaking hypothetically, in response to the question by Stein. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such he isn’t going to close his mind to the possibility of intelligent design. However, if he is going to explain it, he is going to do it rationally and scientifically, not by mentioning some sort of supernatural deity.

Dawkins again says in the middle that such ideas are a “possibility”, that they are “intriguing”, and that you might find evidence if you looked at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. However he never stated that he believes such things, nor that any evidence has been found to suggest it. He goes on to say that such intelligence would have had to come about by some kind of natural (and possibly Darwinian) means. Things don’t just magically appear out of nowhere, at least not in the realms of science.

So Professor Dawkins believes that highly intelligent aliens from somewhere else in the universe may have created us. (3:46 -- 3:54)

No Ray! No. Commenting on an idea, or even trying to explain some form of natural intelligent design does not automatically mean you believe it. As I said before, Dawkins is well aware that there is no evidence for such views, and he didn’t attempt to present evidence in the film. He was commenting on a hypothetical basis for intelligent design in the universe. Stein may have had ulterior motives for asking the question, but Dawkins answer was accurate. Aliens seeding life on Earth is at least one possibility of intelligent design that doesn’t invoke the supernatural.

Will there be a debate between Comfort and Dawkins? I doubt it, but one can dream. I’d personally love to see both Dawkins and Hitchens take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for a double smackdown of logic.

After writing my satiric review of Expelled, I am compelled to write a proper review, but I’m afraid the result would just be a mess of obscenities. In the course of writing the review, I watched the movie twice (once the whole way through, and then second partially to get plot “info”). Watching the movie in it’s entirety almost twice was a pain (believe me), and I really couldn’t say more about it than I did in the satirical review. When you know the facts that are being either lied about or misused, Expelled really does play more like a science fiction piece than anything.

That said, it was quite a well written piece of intolerable propaganda. I suspect it would have been more interesting if they hadn’t chosen the dullest voice in film to narrate and star in it. Of course, a lot of stars in Hollywood actually support science and accept Evolution. Matt Damon nicely brought the subject up in a election video^[1], where he stated “it’s like a really bad Disney movie…I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago…because she’s gonna have the nuclear codes.”

Since writing the review, I have watched Expelled an extra time, and it was this time that I actually enjoyed the film. Why? Because it had lie-correcting subtitles. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you download the subtitles file first, because it really makes a difference.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Now that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has come out on DVD, it seemed only right that I watched it to see what all the fuss was about. For those who are unaware, Expelled is a science fiction thriller that revolves around a post-Nazi, communist Darwinian world, ruled by tyrants, where anyone who simply mentions “God” is quietly removed from academic positions.

The film starts out by highlighting the relationship the story has with oppression and Communism; images of the separation of East Germany from West Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall is shown as the opening credits are edited onto signs in the archive footage (an applaudable effort by the visual effects team). A ball is accidentally kicked over the wall by a group of young boys playing football in the streets, and this foreshadows the people who are “expelled” later in the film. They too are “kicked” over the wall of oppression and their freedoms taken from them.

Ben Stein, the narrator and hero of the film, is introduced in a lecture set in the present day, where he is planning to tell his amazing story to a group of eager listeners. As Ben walks down the long corridor to present his talk, the faces and voices of the villains of the movie are seen and heard, each one arguing their position as the absolute truth, and therefore absolute law.

Ben Stein stars as the film's hero, locked in a war with SCIENCE.

Our hero talks about how freedom made America great, but how he has seen those freedoms torn down by the neo-Nazi organisation known collectively as “SCIENCE”. Over the course of the film, Ben meets in secret, the people who were kicked out of the organisation for questioning the methods used in controlling the people. Those who questioned the doctrine of Darwinism and the Dawkinsian Act (enforced to crush opponents of SCIENCE) were branded as “Intellectual Terrorists”, and forced to live in hiding from the brutal regime, their lives in ruins.

Ben’s view of the SCIENCE organisation begins to crumble, and he realises the corruption that has been hidden from the public view. Confused and scared, he visits his close friend Michael Shermer, a propaganda writer for SCIENCE, who attempts to explain the actions of SCIENCE in a purely positive way. Ben’s realisation that Shermer is just as corrupt as the leaders of SCIENCE leads to some dramatic scenes between the two friends, and ends with Shermer betraying Ben to the authorities.

Now on the run from the SCIENCE police (led by Richard Dawkins himself), Ben seeks out the resistance movement in the confusing back-alleys of Seattle. He seeks refuge with the anti-SCIENCE organisation “The Discovery Institute”, and from there sets out on his missions to bring down the evil leaders of SCIENCE.

The finale of the film comes in the confrontational encounter with the ruthless SCIENCE leader, Richard Dawkins. Ben is captured and interrogated by Dawkins, although Ben gets the upper hand in the process and forces Dawkins into a intellectual trap. The film ends with Ben escaping the clutches of SCIENCE, and pledging to tell the world about the corruption in the organisation.

This was an exciting movie, very well written, with plot twists that even M. Night Shyamalan would have trouble coming up with. It is so amazingly well done that at points I was actually convinced that this could happen in the real world, which is yet another credit to the realism the writers managed to convey in the film.

Both Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins gave fantastic performances in their roles as hero and villain respectively. I suspect an Oscar nomination might be just around the corner for such talented people; they certainly deserved one!

Overall, this movie scores 9/10. Very enjoyable.

What’s the best way to support the theory of Evolution? Make a 2 hour Creationist propaganda film packed with every lie every told about the theory. You may think you have heard all the idiotic arguments that try to undermine Evolution, but I bet there are still some in this documentary that have eluded you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582

The movie is quite old so you may have seen if before, or seen parts of it (the Peanut Butter bit on YouTube), and if you haven’t yet seen Expelled, this movie is probably just as funny.

It seems that Expelled is generating a load of publicity recently, and not because of it’s release today. So far, the list of items Expelled has stolen is this:

• “Inner Life of the Cell” made by Harvard professors
• Music from John Lennon
• Music from The Killers

Could breaking web design licenses also be on that list? After a bit of poking around I found that the blog theme used on the Expelled site (http://expelledthemovie.com/blog – I’m not making it a hyperlink for very good reasons) is the same theme I use on my personal blog, albeit very edited.

Editing this theme isn’t against the license it has on it, but is has this very specific line:

A link back to N.Design Studio must be retained in the footer (either modified or unmodified)

The theme in question is GlossyBlue by the N.Design Studio mentioned, and it is a very good theme, being both attractive and XHTML compliant. I have contacted the designer to enquire whether Expelled purchased a license for the theme (which would enable them to remove the link), but considering they didn’t bother to pay for most of the rest of the film content, I really wouldn’t be surprised if they “overlooked” this as well.

On a related note, it seems the Expelled producers are denying making a copy of the animation (the similarities are hopefully enough to be prosecuted). This statement was place on their website:

Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.- The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”