Bill Maher Challenged to a Debate

I doubt the debate will ever take place, but it would be fascinating to watch…
Bill Maher Challenged to a Debate
(Scroll down to watch a clip of Bill Maher’s comments that triggered the debate challenge.)


2 thoughts on “Bill Maher Challenged to a Debate

  1. “I am beginning to suspect that some men may have evolved from chickens, or at least that’s the impression I get when it comes to evolutionists standing up for their convictions. Mr. Maher can choose the place of the debate. I don’t mind if he has it in front of his audience. He can bill it as ‘Another simple-minded Christian being thrown to the lions.’” – Ray Comfort

    Speaking of running from debates, I was wondering if you had ever read my proposal, Cedric? If not, here’s the link.

    Regarding the topic of your post, I’d also love to see Bill Maher have Ray Comfort as a guest on an episode of Real Time dedicated to the evolution/intelligent design debate. A panel with say….Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), Eugenie Scott (physical anthropologist), and Ray Comfort (intelligent designist), hosted my Bill Maher, would be really interesting to watch.

    I wonder if Ray would bring a banana with him? 😉

    “I can scientifically prove intelligent design.” –Ray Comfort

    If this is true, then Ray should be submitting his work to be peer reviewed in scientific journals…. (you know, the way every “real” scientist presents his work to the scientific community before jumping on talk shows to rave about how they’re right.) Ray Comfort (like all IDists), wants to jump straight to a public relations campaign before actually doing any real science (of course, there’s a good reason for this….it’s because ID isn’t a “real science”.)

    “Comfort points out that the concept of Intelligent Design originated with scientists and it’s the scientific evidence that lead them to that conclusion.”

    The idea of Intelligent Design is certainly held by a small minority of scientists, but its roots (or origins) are certainly not scientific. Any brief study into the history of the anti-evolution movement will show you that’s it has gradually “evolved” throughout this century, going from creationism, to creation science, to intelligent design. Intelligent design is simply a dressed up form of biblical literalism, and biblical literalism is anything but scientific.

    ““Hundreds of scientific scholars and researchers throughout the world support it (Intelligent Design) “

    True. Roughly 500 “scientific scholars” are known to believe in ID, to be precise. I’m sure Maher was just over-simplifying when he said, “evolution is supported by the entire scientific community.” Yet, Maher wasn’t that far off. While 500 may seem like a big number, it’s actually a mere fraction of the number of scientists in the world. To put things into perspective, there’s a similar list of 720 scientists who believe in evolution….AND WHO ARE NAMED STEVE!!!!

    Check it out, here:

    “Professor Michael Behe, the biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure.”

    This is complete nonsense. I’ve been reading about Behe recently, and apparently he can’t actually give any “proof” that certain things are indeed “irreducibly complex” (and when pressed, he actually admits as much). Evolutionists have provided evolutionary pathways for Behe’s claims, showing that things are not irreducibly complex. Yet, Behe refuses to confront these points in his work, and simply continues to reiterate his old points. In recent years, Behe has opted for public relations campaigns, instead of doing real science.


  2. Luke,

    I appreciate your offer to set up a website for back-and-forth debate, and I’m tempted to oblige. But after considering it, I’m going to decline for two reasons:

    1. I’m just too busy. I don’t even have time to respond to the inaccuracies in your above comments, much less spend hours researching and writing about every possible scientific angle on the origins debate.

    2. We would both simply be re-hashing material that can already be found in abundance all over the web. Besides, I doubt we would get much of an audience, and those who did follow the debate would be mostly hard-core adherents. We’d both simply be preaching to the chior.

    An internet debate is a good idea. It’s just too big of a project for me to take on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s