Kirk and Ray's Excellent Adventure

SKEPTIC: The world's wackiest creationists, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, have decided that the best way to convince people that Charles Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about in Origin of Species is by giving out 100,000 free copies of Darwin's landmark book to college students around America. The only difference is that Comfort has written a 50-page "introduction" to the book explaining why the book the reader is about to read is totally bogus. It's a "Trojan Horse" approach to getting their message out, as the book appears to be a genuine "150th Anniversary Special Edition" with Charles Darwin's name the only one appearing on the book's cover. Some nonbelievers have suggested that perhaps they should pass out free copies of the Bible with a 50-page introduction by Richard Dawkins explaining why the book that follows is completely bogus. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

PREACHER: As the son of a PHD biologist who taught assuming evolution for most of his career, I appreciate this endeavor by Kirk and Ray to get Origin of Species into the hands of college students, so they can find out what it really says, beyond the simplistic explanations that they get in freshman biology. I would encourage non-believers to hand out free copies of the Bible with Richard Dawkins intro. Maybe they can try to look more honest by putting a disclaimer on the front cover in fine print. My point is there are too many college students out there that have never read either book. The only reason Kirk and Ray are wacky to you is because of your wacky world view. You assume that the physical realm is all that there is. I could never be so conceited and deluded as to claim that that which I cannot know by my senses doesn't exist.

SKEPTIC: Luckily, I guess I'm just conceited and deluded enough to rely on my senses to determine reality. Call me crazy. If God had really wanted everyone to believe in his existence, I guess he should have given us more than just five senses. I'm glad, though, that you agree with me that Kirk and Ray are being dishonest (not a very Christian virtue)by attempting to conceal their true agenda. Hopefully, college students are smart enough to know when they're being punked. By the way, there is a fascinating online project called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, in which every verse is scrutinized and thoroughly analyzed from a skeptic's point of view. Nothing covert about it. The intent is right in the title. Let Kirk and Ray write The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species. That would be lot more honest, not to mention more interesting.

PREACHER: As one who in a previous post suggested that he would be glad to have people worship him, I see that the "shoe" fits very well on you. I'm reminded of the blind man who was too proud to ask for help as he walked along a narrow road with ditches on both sides. After falling in and wallowing around in the mud for a few hours, he finally got humble enough to ask for help.

Thanks for the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It will be a very useful tool for me. I see that there are a number of good Christian sites that answer the writers claims. Eventually there may be a site that is called Answers to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Some of the categories might be: 1) scientifically unprovable assumption 2) seeing a problem that isn't really there 3) invalid claim to moral authority....

Although I don't know of a complete version of The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species yet, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ would be a good site to go to for such information. Their News to Note articles are always revealing the false assumptions in scientific articles that are written from an evolutionary bias.

SKEPTIC: I believe my point was that it's great to be worshipped, but kind of ridiculous to require anyone to do it. It would be like me requiring my cat to worship me in return for my affection (although I suspect he may see me as a God - after all, I am pretty awesome the way I can walk around and talk and use kitchen utensils. Not to mention the fact that I'm his sole source of food - he really should say grace to me before he chows down).

By the way, the imaginary website you describe actually exists (kind of). It's called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, although it's not available online. The site is just selling his CD.

In any event, this kind of debate is perfectly legitimate. What's not legitimate is when you try to disguise what your true intent is. ("Here, kid, have a free copy of Origin of Species! Pretty good deal, don't ya think?") It's not all that different from the pervert who tries to lure a child into his car with a promise of free candy. Or the Mormons who lure Japanese students into their lair with a promise of free English lessons, for that matter.

Should We Have a "National Day of Prayer?"

SKEPTIC: Some Christians are hopping mad at President Obama because he declined to observe this year's National Day of Prayer with an event at the White House. He issued the proclamation urging Americans to pray (which is required by law), but skipped the annual butt-kissing of religious right leaders that Bush had engaged in by inviting them to the White House each year. By doing so, Obama was doing exactly the same thing as every other president before Bush, going back to Truman, who established the first observance of the day in 1952.

But of course, there are plenty of folks, myself included, who believe that the government has no business telling anyone when to pray, how to pray, or to pray at all. The separation of church and state is a concept that is central to our democracy. Add to that the fact that the observance has been hijacked by the religous right (Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, is the chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force), and what you've got is really The National Day of Christian Prayer. If you happen to believe in a different religion, I guess you're on your own.

PREACHER: Historically, America has been strongly influenced by the Christian religion. So, it is not surprising that such events as a national day of prayer have a strong Christian flavor. The historical concept of the separation of church and state, or freedom of religion (not to be confused with the concept of freedom from religion which is impossible to guarantee) was that the government wouldn't institute a national religion, but would not pass laws against religious activities either. I would suggest that those who aren't of the Christian persuasion stop complaining and institute parallel observances showing their appreciation and solidarity with the nation.

SKEPTIC: You're right that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and the government is required to permit the free exercise of religion. However, the courts have generally held that the government cannot favor one religion over another, and also cannot favor religion over irreligion (or vice versa). This is why public prayers in government schools are not allowed, and is also why local governments get in trouble when they erect things like a nativity scene or The 10 Commandments on government property.

But to get back to the matter at hand - what is the real purpose of The National Day of Prayer? Do Christians really need a special day set aside to pray? Isn't it just an elaborate commercial for Christianity?

PREACHER: Christians see the National Day of Prayer as a way to encourage people to follow the advice in the Bible that says: If My people will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven and hear their prayers and heal their land. We really do believe in a God that listens to humble prayers, and that concerted prayer does make a difference. Then there is a large group of people who see a day of prayer as just a cultural event. Those are the people that unbelievers should try to reach. If instead of complaining and going to court about religious events and objects on public places (which causes a backlash), you were creative at producing what we missionaries call dynamic cultural equivalents you might be able to win over the majority of the population.

SKEPTIC: A "dynamic cultural equivalent..." That's an interesting idea. So we nonbelievers should come up with something along the same lines as the National Day of Prayer that we can celebrate. Hmm...Okay, how about this? I think the U.S. government should declare the second Sunday in June each year as a "National Day of Darwin." On this day, the government will issue a proclamation imploring Americans to meditate on Charles Darwin and thank him for giving us a rational understanding of how the world works. Teachers can have special classes for students to make sure they understand why Darwin is so revered. People can send special Happy Darwin Day cards to each other and maybe even give each other presents. Cake would be optional.

PREACHER: And don't forget the music! How is this title? "In the Name of Darwin We have the Victory." Then you could quote slogans from his world famous book translated into the tongues of all people almost instantly through modern technology: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Surely in a few years there could be a mass turning to atheism. A new age of rationality and peace would emerge. 

I think hell will freeze over before that happens though.