The Banana Theory

Recently, Nightline hosted a televised debate between a group of atheists on one side, and evangelical minister Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron on the other.

I never saw this program, but based on what I’ve read, the debate involved two sides deeply dug into their positions, one (the atheists) supporting evolutionary theory and the other (Comfort and Cameron) rejecting it outright despite oodles of hard data to the contrary.

In other words, the whole thing was a magnificent waste of time.

If I had to side with one or the other, however, it would be the evolutionary position. But this is not the point of this post; I'm not an atheist.

The point is illustrating how evangelicals like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, et al., simply do not understand (or ignore) basic principles of science in their rejection of evolution, and support of intelligent design.

Click here for an excellent example by a FSTDT submitter named Mark, who recently enjoyed an extended email debate with Ray Comfort on his lack of having done his homework in science class, a prime example being Ray often using a banana (which he calls "the Atheist's Nightmare") in pro-ID debates to illustrate how it's easy-to-peel stem is proof of God's hand in it's design. Yet the massive hole in Ray's great banana theory is that he neglects to mention that bananas today are the result of genetic manipulation by humans, and bear little resemblance to the original food (see below).

Anyhow, despite Ray’s polite demeanor, note his chronic inability to stay on point when Mark tosses little details like basic laws of physics at him.

Here’s a follow-up: click here for a clip of Ray Comfort’s vaunted banana theory, followed by a rebuttal version with little pesky details called facts.