Ray Comfort "not an expert on evolution" shock!

USNews has been holding a written debate between Ray Comfort and Eugenie Scott on the subject of Comfort's decision to distribute a version of Darwin's Origin of Species with a self-penned creationist introduction. Comfort's first statement is here and was followed by Eugenie Scott's first rebuttal here. Comfort replies here and finally Scott comes back again here.

It's not a huge surprise to anyone who has followed some of Ray Comfort's writing and media appearances that he uses both his statements to trot out the same oft-refuted creationist arguments that he brings to every debate. It's also not a huge surprise that Eugenie Scott knocks back those arguments with huge skill and clarity of thought, especially in her final statement, which is excellent.

Ray Comfort's second statement was so full of unintelligible non-arguments that it was impressive even for him, so I thought I'd have a little go through it as well.

Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.

The bizarre strawman argument that evolution implies that a single male and a single female of each species must have evolved at the same time by coincidence is one of his absolute favourite arguments. It's even in the foreword of his laughable (but pun-tastically titled) You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but you Can't Make him Think (available with Look Inside on Amazon).

This argument is borne out of an incredible misunderstanding of how evolution works. In Comfortian evolution, a species, let's say a horse, will spontaneously decide to undergo evolution with the specific end goal of becoming another species, let's say a giraffe. In the time intermediate between being a horse and a giraffe, this species becomes a freakish chimera beast and also apparently stops engaging in sexual reproduction. Eventually, one of these asexual girorses (or hiraffes?) will give birth to a male giraffe, signifying the male line's attainment of the pre-ordained finish line. However, this single male giraffe must wait around hoping that a compatible female giraffe will be born to another hiraffe within its lifetime.

If this mechanism were even tangentially like Darwinian evolution, I would agree that the chances of a male and female of the new species co-evolving at the same time would be astronomically small and Comfort would have a valid point. Unfortunately, however, never has a concept been so badly misunderstood.

In fact evolution works at the population level. The immediate evolutionary ancestor to a giraffe would have been something very very like a giraffe, almost imperceptibly different. Each of these incredibly giraffe-like pre-giraffes would have been reproductively compatible with the giraffes that followed them and the pre-pre-giraffes that preceded them, which would themselves have been very much like a giraffe.

At no point would there been a single male or female unable to mate with other members of the population at large because Darwinian evolution occurs at the population, rather than individual, level gradually and over a very long time. So Comfort's argument is meaningless.

Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime.
Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see in creation is in full working order—from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom—from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant.

This assertion comes from a similar position of ignorance. Evolution is a gradual, directionless and blind process. The evolutionary predecessors of the bee were not working towards one day becoming modern bees. Rather, modern bees just happen to have been the outcome of the effects of natural selection on those predecessors through history.

The same is true of humans, although this can be difficult for people to reconcile with the natural and reasonable desire to believe that we are somehow special and sit apart from all other creatures. The truth is that humans are as we are largely because of chance and if any number of factors in our evolutionary past had been different, we would be different now - perhaps in noticeable and significant ways or perhaps not.

Every species represented on Earth today is equally evolutionarily suited to life. If it were not, it would go extinct. This has been true at every point in the history of the planet. Evolution is still going on today and many of today's extant species may be the transitional species of another age.

Maybe in a hundred thousand years, there will be a new flying insect on the planet, let's call it a penk, the ancestor of which will have been our familiar honey bee. No doubt a Ray Comfort of the day will snort scornfully at the idea that that penk evolved because he cannot be shown evidence of a half penk but only other similar insects. The point is that each of those links in the chain that bind the bee to the penk would have been themselves no less a complete and functioning creature than those at the arbitrarily selected beginning and end points of that journey.

Towards the end of the paragraph, Ray moves away from animals and brings the sun and the atmosphere into the argument, stating that if these had not been exactly as they are now, life would not have been possible. But this is a logically confused argument. If the sun had not formed, we would not exist. But the fact that it did and we do does not imply that it had a creator.

If the sun or the atmosphere had formed differently, life might still have existed, but in a different form, just as if any other factor in our evolutionary history had been different. If the atmosphere contained different elements, or different proportions of the same elements, life as we know it would not exist, but other life might. And if any of that life had reached the sort of intelligence that humans hold now, there would probably be another Ray Comfort using exactly the same argument.

A lot of creationist misunderstandings of evolution and cosmology stem from the belief that humanity is special and so any explanatory system must set the existence of humankind as an end goal. This is not the case. Humans are no more special than chimpanzees, rabbits, sponges and viruses. Our existence in our present form is the chance outcome, neither fortuitous nor otherwise, of a blind non-random natural selection process applied over hundreds of millions of years.

Scott continues, "There are more specimens of 'Ardi' (the newly described Ardipithecus ramidus) than there are of Tyrannosaurus . . . We and modern chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago . . . ." But that's another evolutionary "Oops!" if you believe the learned scientists on the Discovery Channel. In a recent two-hour documentary about Ardi, the scientists said, "Ever since Darwin, we have bought into the idea that humans evolved from ancient chimplike creatures. That's because modern chimps seemed to share a lot of anatomy and modern behavior with humans. So the idea that we evolved from something like chimps seemed to make sense. But now, the discovery of Ardipithecus shows that this idea is totally and completely wrong." Did you hear what they said? This idea that we evolved from ancient chimplike creatures is totally and completely wrong.

This demonstrates a common creationist tactic: to jump on any disagreement about relatively minor scientific details as a major failing of the whole theory. The actual contention of the Discovery Channel documentary, as I understand it, was that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimps was not as much like a modern chimp as previously thought. However it certainly did not call into question the well established fact that we and chimps did share a common ancestor.

Plus, I believe the convention in science is to get your information from a source slightly more academically weighty than a TV documentary, even a two-hour one.

I am aware that it is the learning process of evolutionary "science" to continually discover itself to be wrong. So there can never be a time when believers can claim they have the truth. This is just as well, because each new and believed hypothesis, like the crazy fashions of a superficial teenager, is in time discarded in favor of the new.

Actually, to discover mistakes and adapt accordingly is a feature of all science and is actually one of its greatest strengths. Imagine if astronomy had stopped with Ptolomy's model of the solar system because science was not interested in changing to get closer to the truth. Or if nobody had bothered to work on the concept of alternating current because direct current was already in place.

However, the foundational fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection is not in doubt because no reason has ever been given to doubt it. It is only the details and the fine print that undergo revision when new evidence gives reason.

After addressing my arguments from the portion of the Introduction she doesn't want students to read, Scott says, "More fossils will provide more details, but this outline of human evolution is not in serious doubt among scientists." Hear her own words: "More fossils will provide more details." In other words, they still don't have the undisputed fossils. That's what Darwin lamented 150 years ago! He said that when a skeptic "may ask in vain, 'Where are the numberless transitional links?' " Darwin's answer was that the missing links "may lie buried under the ocean." They are still buried somewhere, 150 years later. Scott said that "human evolution isn't in serious doubt among scientists." But I say, it should be.

Finally, after all this foreplay, Comfort has made his way to every creationist's favourite argument - that there are no transitional fossils. Creationists' dismissal of the plethora of transitional forms that have been discovered comes from their bizarre mischaracterisation of the theory of evolution itself, as discussed above. Comfort's belief that any extant species must be linked to its ancestors by a lineage of bizarre chimeras like the crocoduck leads to the incorrect expectation that there should be fossils discovered that document these odd, twisted creatures of his imaginings.

We have numerous transitional fossils, but they all look too disappointingly normal and, superficially at least, too much like other extant animals to satisfy the expectations of the twisted, straw-filled version of evolution held up by creationists.

There is also the problem, when asking why we don't have numberless fossils, that for an animal to fossilise is pretty rare. A quite specific and unlikely set of circumstances lead to a dead animal fossilising, so only a tiny percentage of the animals that have ever lived have done so. Nevertheless, despite the necessarily patchy nature of the fossil record, it is full enough to be useful and to inform our understanding of our planet's past.

She also says, "There are splendid fossils of dinosaurs that have feathers and of whales that have legs—and even feet." But she doesn't give me any details of such splendor. Where are they?

In answer to this, I can do no better than to quote Eugenie Scott's own reply:

Comfort complains that I didn't provide enough detail in my brief essay about those fossil whales. You want a list of fossil whales showing the transitional features marking the evolutionary transition from land animal to marine, such as changes in the ears, nostrils, and limbs? Indohyus, Icthyolestes, Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Remingtonocetus, Ambulocetus . . . . Never mind. Start here, for a nontechnical review by a team of whale paleontologists.

Ray Comfort concludes:

There are so many gaps and holes in the theory of evolution that you could drive a fleet of a thousand fully laden 18-wheelers through them. The irony is that I can see them, and I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution. So, what does that say about the theory's experts, whoever they are? It says (as a wise man once said) that man will believe anything . . . as long as it's not in the Bible.

The declaration that he is "not an expert on the subject of evolution" is the first thing he has said that I agree with and perhaps he should consider whether perhaps it is his understanding, rather than the subject itself, that has the gaps and the holes.

-

Update: The National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) has an excellent page up refuting point by point Ray Comfort's introduction.

Five Things Atheists Don't Want You to Know

I always enjoy reading descriptions of atheists written by the sort of deeply religious people who seem to have never met one. Generalisations and bizarre false beliefs tend to abound. It always brings to my mind the image of a stooping elderly grandmother cautioning a young child of beasts that lurk on the moors at night. "Beware the Godless, my child," they seem to caution, "they have not hearts like we have. And they feed on good children like you."

An excellent example has appeared in the letters to the editor of the Red Deer Express, a community newspaper in Alberta. I must admit, I found this through Pharyngula - I don't just routinely scan through all Canadian newspapers in the hope of gloriously eccentric characterisations of atheists.

Anyway, in response to an on-going discussion about atheism, this writer explains:

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include
these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

And then goes on to list five points that atheists would rather people not know about them.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

"They claim they have superior knowledge then (sic) the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking." Uh... They claim to have "superior knowledge" because they have "better knowledge"? Buh?

I'm not sure what she means when she says "they will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them". Biologically, I don't acknowledge anyone above me. I see all organisms around today on an equal level, since by our survival each of us has proven our fitness to be here (perhaps excepting the panda, which seems to be doing it's best to become extinct, thwarted only by the tenacious efforts of a handful of Chinese zoologists). I also do not see myself, or humanity in general, above any other species. Each species that survives must be equally well evolved for their surroundings.

But on a human level, I happily accept the hierachical organisation of society that puts some (or most, in fact) people in positions of more power than me.

And I certainly do not think I am god. But, an important part of rationalism is always admitting that you might be wrong.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wow, that's quite a generalisation. Some atheists have been hurt in their lives, just as some Christians have, and so have some Buddhists and some Muslims. Everyone has been hurt to a greater or lesser extent in their lives, so this point is irrelevant. And I don't understand why atheists shouldn't be able to understand suffering.

It's also a contradiction in terms: we are mad at God so we deny there is one? We're not mad at god precisely because we deny there is one. How can being angry at something lead you to decide that it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

No, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for the toothfairy. We're not. Because we don't believe it exists.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

This is a common way of phrasing the argument from design. You can see a painting and you know it was made by a painter, therefore the Earth/a tree/humans/a sponge/HIV or whatever must have been made by some kind of designer too. The problem is, the logic doesn't follow. Just because one or two or any number of things have been created in one way, doesn't mean that everything else was made the same way. In fact, a wall may be green because a painter has worked on it, but a leaf is not green for the same reason.

She uses some interesting examples to make her point:

"Can the atheist make a tree?"

Well, no. But surely this is as much an argument against the tree being created as anything else.

"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly"

This was believed for some time since a couple of French entomologists suggested that bees' flight defied aerodynamics in 1934. However, unfortunately for this writer, the flight of bees has been thoroughly explained since the '30s and is no longer a mystery. Plus, on a note of pedantry, saying something is scientifically impossible doesn't really make any sense. The best she could have said is that it was unexplained by science.

"It is impossible for our eyes to see"

This claim is a little more myserious. I'm not sure on what basis she has decided that vision should be impossible, but it clearly isn't, and in fact eyes are very well understood by biologists.

"Their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat"

It's fairly obvious after even the briefest moment of consideration that we don't need to consciously attend to everything our body does. I don't need to purposefully tell my lungs to take in air every few seconds. I don't even really need to think too hard about what I want my limbs to do. What is the writer suggesting? That God is constantly monitoring the heart and breathing rates of every human, and every other animal, all the time? If that's the alternative, the idea that our brain stem can automate our bodily functions sounds considerably more plausible. And if you factor in the biological and physiological evidence we have that this is, indeed, the case, the writer's argument starts to look rather misguided.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

I wonder what reason the writer would give if asked why she does not pray to Allah five times a day, or why she does not hold the cow as sacred, or why she does not sacrifice livestock to Neptune before embarking on travel. Is she denying these other faiths because she does not want them to be true? Isn't the evidence of these faiths just as close in front of her eyes as the evidence of hers is in front of ours? She cheerfully lives her life as an atheist to all other gods yet criticises those who do not believe in hers.

She would rather believe in God and make sure her life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being, but she is not taking into account the other superior beings whose existence is equally likely and equally self-evident. She is almost certainly not doing what is acceptable to them.

She ends with the argument ad populum. Apart from the fact that the popularity of an idea has no baring on its veracity, she also ignores the fact that, even if 84% of people believe in God (the statistics I found indicate that 86% are religious although only 54% are monotheistic), they certainly don't all believe in the same god. Even those that do believe in the same god often disagree wildly in what sorts of behaviour will please him/her/it. Personally I do not agree that the majority rules in this, or any, case.

To Answer Your Questions - Part 3

Part 3 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 and part 2 can be found elsewhere on my blog.

10. From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

The idea that religion is a useful source of morals is a common one. It is one of the few things that even many otherwise godless people are able to say in favour of religion. That whatever its flaws, the Bible is a useful moral guidebook is one of the most pervasive myths about religion's place in society. But it is a myth. I argue that wherever our moral sense does come from, it is certainly not from Christianity, or any religion.

For all the good messages the Bible gives ("Thou shalt not kill" etc) there are a good number of rules that vary between the vaguely ridiculous and the downright stupid. 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us men must not have long hair; 1 Samuel 15:2-3 tells us that it is OK to kill men, women and children in the capture of a town; 1 Kings 22:21-22 tells us it is fine to lie if God tells us to; Exodus 31:13-15 tells us in no uncertain terms that anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death; and Genesis 20:12 talks without criticism about Abraham's marriage to his sister.

And God hardly sets a good example. Between indiscriminately killing 3000 of his people in the Egyptian dessert for worshipping false idols to handing over the reins of Job's life, and those of this family, to Satan just to prove a point, God is the very image of a petty, capricious tyrant.

In general, modern Christians do not stone to death those who work on the sabbath, or marry their siblings, or keep slaves (as is approved throughout the Bible). The very fact that Christians are able to see past the stupid, nonsensical rules that fill the Bible's pages, and take note only of the sensible ones, shows that there is a moral sense inherent in us, apart from our religious upbringing. If our moral sense truly came from religion, then why shouldn't we take Lot's example and give our virgin daughters over to a rabble of men to be raped (Genesis 19:8)? Or sleep with them ourselves (Genesis 31-36)? The answer is simple: our moral sense does not come from the Bible.

So where do our morals come from? Well, there is a lot of compelling evidence that our modern moralistic and societal natures are evolved in the same way our physical attributes are. Many "human" societal conventions such as co-operation and even altruism have been observed in other animals, including those not closely evolutionarily related to us, such as ants. This implies that such social constructs are commonly evolved by species for whom it is useful to live and work together.

While these other animals may not exhibit exactly what we might subjectively call morals, it is certainly plausible to suggest that these tendencies of other social animals to adapt their behaviour to better accommodate living in proximity with others could be seen as sort of proto-morals. In any case, evolution is certainly plausible enough to reject any religious basis for the existence of a moral sense.

11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

First, I should point out that calling man "nothing but the random arrangement of molecules" is something of a simplification of the scientific position on life and looks suspiciously like a deliberate strawman to attempt to invalidate the argument.

However, the answer to this question is really the same as the last part of the answer to number 10. Humans have evolved an in-built need to care and live honourably among our fellow humans. It is in-built because it is by these methods that our evolutionary ancesters were able to enjoy favour in society, find friends, find mates and generally make life easier for themselves. An individual incapable of showing care for anyone else would be snubbed by their group and lose the benefits of being part of the crowd, such as group hunting and the availablity of potential mates.

The assumption in the question is that it is only through acknowledgement of God that there is a reason to live a caring life. However, let's look at the flipside of that assumption: that a Christian, to whom, hyperthetically, it were proven there were no God, would immediately stop caring for other humans. This is clearly not the case as people with no belief in any higher power are able to lead just as caring lives as religious people as indeed people with beliefs in different gods are able to be just as caring as Christians.

The worst thing about arguments like this is that they remove people's autonomy. By creating a belief that our most basic and noble human traits are inextricably linked to a belief in God, we can deny ourselves credit for the wonderful things we do, as individuals and as a race.

To Answer Your Questions - Part 2

Part 2 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 is here.

4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

There are two ways this question could be answered. One would be to demonstrate that, similarities aside, the differences between many of the known versions of the manuscripts should be worrying enough as to render laughable the concept of Biblical inerrancy. The other way would be to point out that the premise of the question is based on the non-sequitur that a greater number of corresponding texts somehow implies reliability. If that were the case, the Christian New Testament could be seen as less valid than the pre-Christian Old Testament, implying that Judaism is more correct than Christianity.

I also wonder what is meant by "originals" in the question?

5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

I'm not sure whether this question is intended to ask whether I can live in a consistent manner baring in mind the worldview I have, or whether I can live in a way consistent with my worldview.

Either way, the answer is yes, thanks.

6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

Would it make better sense to live in the pretense that a tyrannical, judgemental being in the sky watches my every move finding reasons to condemn me to an eternity of pain unless I dedicate a certain amount of my time and effort to unreservedly thanking him and glorifying his name, rather than to live trying honestly to better understand the world through rationality and evidence, free from the disingenuous and useless dogma and misplaced certainty of an ancient 'revealed' text?

No, it would not.

7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

It seems odd that the Christian website is asking the atheist in what sense Jesus was a good man, since it is their premise that he was good, not mine. If Jesus was lying about being the son of God (the alternative being that such quotes were attributed to him by his chroniclers) it certainly raises the question of whether he was a conman or whether his claims of divinity were a product of delusion. Nevertheless, if the Biblical accounts of his life (beyond the claims of divinity, of course) are correct, and he did heal the sick, help the poor, preach compassion and love and defy some of the sillier Jewish rules, then it does sound like he was a good man. Although of course it is not my place to judge another man's worth - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture?

Given that I have already rejected the idea that the scriptures are truthful, and the idea that Jesus was the son of God, the answer to this is evidently 'yes'.

9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

This argument is based on the argumentum ad populum (or as I call it, the Elvis Fallacy after the claim of his 1959 album that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). The truth is that any number of people can be wrong. Before it was demonstrated to be otherwise, the whole population of the world thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but of course this did not make it so. The number of people holding an opinion has no baring on its veracity.

Question 9 is followed by a couple of follow on questions, so I'll answer those too.

-Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times?

This question appeals to the same circular reasoning of question 3 which I answered in part 1. The implication is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. I could open up a new Word document now and copy and paste the words "This is the inspired word of God" 2600 times, print it out, get it bound, and then, by this logic, my magnum opus would have just as much claim to the divine well of truth as the Bible. Obviously, a book claiming something is not proof of that same book's claims.

Of course, this does not answer the question of whether I was aware of the number of times the Old Testament made claims of divine inspiration. I wasn't, but now I am. Thanks.

-Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

This is really a re-assertion of the same fallacy as question 9. Once again, the number of people to buy a particular book does not make any difference to the truth of that book's contents.

However once again, I have not answered the question. Yes, I did know that.

Part 3 will follow soon...

To Answer Your Questions - Part 1

ChristianAnswers.net, home of unwitting comedian Ray Comfort, has a patronisingly titled list of 44 questions for the "not-yet-a-believer". It claims that "in fact, considering the evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle of those who believe than to join it". Therefore, the sceptic is challenged to answer a long list of questions designed to challenge their misplaced faith in rationality and free though.

I love doing a good test. I was probably the only person at school who looked forward to spelling tests. I even love filling in those questionnaires about the service at hotels. So a test aiming to make not-yet-believers question why they're not Christians sounds like great fun.

As there are 44 questions, I will post up my answers a few at a time because to answer them all in one go would probably stall the internet. Here are the first few:

1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

There are so many answers that could be given to this, and they have all been given before: here and here, for example, so I will be relatively brief.

The appearance of design and order is an illusion, perfectly well accounted for by scientific models and theories of the origins, and progressions, of life and the universe. Modern organisms are products of evolution - the mechanism whereby only the genes of those animals fit enough to mate are passed on and therefore attributes that aid survival in an environment generally carry on in a population while attributes that hinder survival do not. This theory well explains the many beautiful and complex attributes we can observe in ourselves and every other living organism.

Our perception of our environment as designed is a flipside to this same process. Over millions of years we have evolved to best fit the environment in which we live. Where things in nature seem to have been designed for us, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: we have, by the blind forces of an unknowable and uncaring biological and physical process, been shaped over millions of years to fit that nature.

It is also worth quickly looking at the premise of the question and wondering whether the universe even has a "high degree of design and order". While there are plenty of lovely things in the world - Ray Comfort's banana of course being one of them (although not exactly as God designed), there are also plenty of terrible, uncaring things that make life difficult for us, like cancers and viruses. And for all the wonderful apparent order of something like the eye, there is the uselessness of vestigiality.

2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

I was unaware that there was "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories", being of the understanding that there were many parts of the Bible that lacked any outside substantiation. So with interest I followed a link that accompanied the question, concisely entitled In what ways have archaeological discoveries verified it?

The link contains a list of five examples of people or events in the Bible that have been accounted for by evidence outside the Bible. In each case, the example is of a relatively inconsequential detail, such as whether Solomon really was as wealthy as we're told. There is no mention of any of the slightly more damning archaeological cases against the Bible, such as the lack of evidence for a world-wide flood, the lack of evidence of an Arc, the lack of evidence that kangaroos and koalas managed to get from the middle east to Australia after the flood or the pretty scant evidence that the exodus even took place - especially since somewhere near mount Sinai should be the corpses of 3000 idol-worshipping Israelites.

Given that they haven't accounted for any of these major inconsistencies, I refute the question's premise that there is "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories".

3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

Again, the link that accompanies this question gives aloof descriptions of these fulfilled prophecies, similar to the archaeological evidences of the last question. The main point they make is that, in the Old Testament, many prophecies were made that were fulfilled in the New Testament, many of them by Jesus. Let us remember however that prophecies of saviours, second comings and redemption are common to many mythologies and that a burgeoning religious group would do well to capitalise on such prophecies to give themselves extra weight. An author writing about the life of a man they believe to be the Messiah would not necessarily be exempt from the temptations of augmenting facts with details that would tie into the ancient and revered prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures, in order to convince fellows Jews of Jesus' divinity. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, like those of Nostradamus and of many modern psychics, are characteristically woolly and unspecific and therefore easy to mold to any agenda if desired.

Question 3 is followed by a few specific examples, so I will address these.

- Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a form of capital punishment?

Psalm 22 only has a few lines which could refer to the actual circumstances of the death of Christ and although the piercing of hands and feet is described, there is no mention of being affixed to anything, let alone a cross. Therefore I think it is fair to question whether this is a description of crucifixion since any mention of the most distinguishing element of this mode of punishment is omitted. While crucifixion may not have been established at the time of writing of the psalms, other punishments involving nails, hands and feet may have been.

- How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

There is substantial evidence to say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem at all. Robin Lane Fox's Truth and Fiction in the Bible contains a very clear break down of all the evidence that contradicts the Biblical and traditional accounts of Jesus' birth. To mercilessly paraphrase his far more thorough explanation: Joseph would not have been required to travel to the town of his birth had their been a census, any census would only be interested in where people live now. If there had been a census ordered by Quirinius, it would not have applied to Joseph anyway as Nazareth was still self-governing. Although a census, ordered by Quirinius, is recorded by Josephus, it was 10 years after the death of King Herod who died in 4BC.

The story placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at the time of both Herod and Quirinius was therefore most likely a specific attempt by the authors of Matthew and Luke (or some earlier oral tradition) to fulfil Micah's prophecy to lend weight to the idea that Jesus was the saviour.

- Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.

This seems like an extremely odd way to ask this question. Why 48 of 300? Why the use of numerical odds altogether? I can only assume this is a cunning ploy to attempt to fool otherwise scientifically minded people that they know what they're talking about.

However, as I have already discussed, prophecies fulfilled within the Bible - especially in events recounted by people who have a personal or political interest in conveying and spreading their message - cannot be taken credulously as evidence of anything.

- How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

This might as well be the same question as the last two. I do not accept the premise that there was a virgin birth and therefore I do not accept the supposed fulfilment of this prophecy as evidence of anything.

These last three examples have all used a type of circular reasoning characteristic of defenders of Biblical inerrancy. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

Part 2 will follow soon...