Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

'Science and Religion Should Not Be at Odds': Blaze Readers React to ‘Evolution vs. God’ Filmmaker Who Responded to Atheists


"Evolution is the triumph of hope over science."

Logo for Ray Comfort’s “Evolution vs. God” documentary (Photo Credit: Ray Comfort)\n

TheBlaze posted a story last week on "Evolution vs. God" filmmaker Ray Comfort responding to atheists' requests that he release unedited footage while they dismiss the documentary’s contents and shoot down Comfort’s claim that there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Logo for Ray Comfort’s “Evolution vs. God” documentary (Photo Credit: Ray Comfort)

Comfort also asks evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to provide evidence, then insists Dawkins can't as there is none to offer. Here's what some Blaze readers had to say about the story:


Take it from a former atheist: there is more to intelligent design than there is to support the secular view. True scientists will tell you that in private. It's not just evolution that's flawed, either. It's physics, astronomy, quantum mechanics. Some scientists in this field say, “We don’t know the nature of something in our theory but it works." Most of it has to do with the duality of matter. Is it a particle or a wave? Sometimes it behaves like a wave, but if you introduce any tool to measure it, it behaves like a particle! Einstein once said: "I like to think the moon is still there when I am not looking at it."

I return to my faith because I refuse to take science on faith. These guys don’t need to give them the raw footage; just tell them to read a few of their secular books, and if they're honest, the truth is in them. What do you call an interpretation you cannot prove? Among other things, SPECULATION! After 40 years, it was these inconsistencies in science that forced me to return to God...not the Bible or some charismatic preacher. It was the truth.


Ray Comfort is the REAL DEAL. GOD BLESS HIM. The problem with these atheists is that they cannot begin to prove non-design. They, for example, have never been able to explain the magnificently designed EYE that has accompanied ‘all creatures’ from day one.

Faith takes faith. That’s why it’s called faith, but I know personally that the closer I draw to GOD the more I am aware of Him as my Father, the Creator of everything…how and why I will find out later…but I do know: GOD is LOVE and there is no explanation for LOVE other than GOD. We also know there is EVIL and there is no way for EVIL to exist without Satan.

Communists/Marxists ,etc. do not want US to worship GOD because they want to control us. That’s why WE have to oversee what our kids are getting in textbooks and at school. I can’t even imagine being ANTI-GOD. There's simply way too much proof for GOD’S existence and historical evidence for the existence of His Son Jesus Christ. The amazing thing is that GOD loves us and is waiting for us to turn to Him and ask Him to grow our faith. I really pity those who “protest too much”...they miss the entire purpose of living. We’re here to choose: GOD or HELL. Looks like they’ve chosen Hell.


The problem with Mr. Comfort and his ilk is they want simple answers to very complex questions, without any background/knowledge in the subjects that contribute to the debate they're engaged in.

Example: If you don’t know anything about “middle-school level” biology, how can you expect me to explain the information needed to understand vestigial anatomy, mitochondrial DNA, anthropology, carbon dating, and about two dozen other subjects necessary to establish a level playing field in the debate?

People who still cling to creationist views don’t believe in the science behind those subjects because they don’t understand it. (Flat-earth society comes to mind…) And instead of educating themselves on those subjects BEFORE forming opinions, they lazily label it as sinful nonsense because it’s easier. They’d rather believe that scientists around the world are engaged in an active conspiracy to conceal information from the public in the Internet age. You realize how stupid that sounds?

In short, Comfort wants Dawkins to use very simple terms to explain a very complex process in a few short sentences at a time without using any scientifically supported evidence. While ignoring the fact that Comfort is unable to offer a single shred of proof for any of his claims about God. Scientific or otherwise.

Gee, I wonder why he’s not eager to jump on that train…

Bronco Guy

There are some very intelligent atheists/agnostics regularly posting to these subjects. They are typically nice people doing their best to prove their points. In the wake of this film, these “regulars” are either conspicuously quiet, or their arguments propose no evidence whatsoever, only attacks against Ray Comfort and some conspiracy theories about what ended up on the editing room floor. Weak, at best.

None of us should be waiting for the editing conspiracy to reveal that on the editing room floor was suddenly ALL THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN. That’s silly. What these experts know, and the evidence they use to support their claims, is clearly seen in the film. Ray does an excellent job of showing that the evolutionist has no leg, fin, or microbe on which to stand.

Conversely, the people, places and events of the Bible continue to be verified through archeology, historical secular texts, written eyewitness accounts, as well as by the testimony of changed lives or the testimony of the Holy Spirit’s activity in relationship with believers.

But the lynchpin of evidence for the Christian faith rests on the person of Jesus Christ, who’s historicity has been validated and verified countless times. He has not given anyone the option of labeling him a good teacher or prophet. He was either a lunatic, a liar or God in the flesh. I encourage you to actually read what he said and did and see how viable the lunatic/liar option is.


This is the problem with becoming an ‘"ist": your head inflates to enormous proportions, and you strike out in anger. I studied the Bible, was raised by a Southern Baptist mom and a Catholic dad. I was given the knowledge and tools to become a God-fearing woman. Somewhere down the road, I decided it simply isn’t for me. I still enjoy the Bibles lessons; they keep me in a place of feeling grounded, compassionate, responsible for my actions, and give me a deep respect of our country and what it was founded on. While I may not believe in God at this point in my life, how ARROGANT would I be to tell my fellow Americans that they are wrong, or push for removal of God? I may not close my eyes while grace is spoken at Christmas dinner, but you bet my head is bowed in respect. My children will be given the same opportunities I had to find God, and for the sake of this country, I hope they do. And if they do, they need to use that in a positive way and never be arrogant or spew hatred at someone who doesn’t believe what they do. Once we lose that respect for God and each other in this country, we are sunk. (Well, we all know we're sinking fast as we speak, actually.) I don’t discuss my beliefs because I don’t want to be lumped in with these crazy atheists. Please know not all who don’t believe are not angry and disrespectful. Some people, like myself, have as much respect for your beliefs as you do. Atheists and Christians alike need to open their minds a bit and just listen.


Unlike most, I have a degree in conservation biology (they renamed it after turning people off with “environmental education”— wish they’d renamed it before I graduated), one in geology, and two in engineering.

The assumptions in evolution ultimately come down to 1. Something from nothing, 2. Magic, 3. Ignore erosion and other natural processes.

Cosmology became a religion some years back when they came up with the non-physics idea of universes popping out of literally nothing. Any time you get something from nothing, that demands a creator God. There’s no scientific explanation that works.

So a dozen or so random amino acids from lightning in ammonia (which also creates some really nasty compounds) magically assembled themselves into thousands of structures each requiring thousands or millions of chemical building blocks in a cell in order for it to work? That's nuts. The cell doesn’t work without such organization and it can’t happen randomly. Particularly when you consider that most of the chemicals involved require life to create them to start with.

It�s astounding how many �scientists� ignore what happens in the field. Having seen 8″ of soil develop in 20 years, it makes me laugh when I see �3 inches per 1,000 years�, which wouldn�'t even keep up with erosion. The same with rocks eroding in 10, 20, 30 years requiring �millions of years�.

Evolution is the triumph of hope over science.


Quite sad really, that this Comfort fellow devotes all this time to trying to refute evolution (which isn’t actually opposed to theism), and yet he is too arrogant to even try to understand what he is arguing against.

Apparently, any kind of logical inference is considered faith in his terms. So for example, if I wanted to say that science concludes that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a carnivore, by his terms that would be a statement of faith. We may have the fossilized contents of a dinosaur’s stomach, or we can analyze their bone structure or their teeth, but of course, we will never SEE a tyrannosaurus eating another animal, so that must be faith, right?

This is clearly not how science works, and applying this false standard means he wouldn’t consider other branches of science such as archaeology or astronomy (which often has to extrapolate from inference) to be sciences at all.


I’m an atheist (just thought I’d get that out up front). I think the theists are wrong to argue over where the ‘meat’ comes from, just like I think it’s wrong for science to argue about the existence of a soul and a deity. The soul is the province of religion. The physical world the province of science.

The most striking criticism I have of the film was the repeated question by the filmmaker. “Show me proof of evolution” then deny scientists the ability to point to the fossil record as proof.

Imagine if any of the scientists had turned it around and said, “Show me proof of a God” and then said, “No, you can’t use a book authored 2,000 years ago; show me proof NOW.”

That would have been an equally fair question, right? An extraordinary claim, like the existence of an invisible, intelligent, supernatural force, should require extraordinary proof.

You can’t point to the natural world since there is no way to PROVE that its existence could ONLY be explained by the existence of a supernatural force. That is, how would we know the DIFFERENCE between a world that was created as science says and a world that was created by supernatural means?

Arguing that because science can’t explain ‘everything’...therefore what you believe must be TRUE is a non-starter. Your proofs must stand alone as well, or you must simply say that your belief is based on faith, not fact. (I’m okay with that, by the way.)


Dawkins doesn’t want the debate. Not because he’d lose. He might win, but his views would almost certainly be revealed as just theories with no more compelling evidence than Creationist theories. Atheists are no different from Christians when it comes to having faith.

Many Christians take the existence of God on blind faith – because they were taught that in Sunday school and never seriously questioned it. Many atheists take the atheist claims on blind faith, never really questioning or exploring evolution or whatever the current “dominant” theory of the universe’s origin is. The main difference is, the atheists criticize and belittle faith while Christians embrace it.

john vincent

Ray Comfort cleans Dawkins' clock with a second hand. He has what the famed atheist does not: spiritual logic and earthly common sense, both necessary to see the hand of a Creator and the lies of evolution without God.

Ray’s appeal is not only to the mind with sound and verifiable information, but also he brings a word TO THE CONSCIENCE...and this is where Dawkins is weighed in the balance and found wanting.

That said, there would be no ‘winner’ in a debate between the two, as biases would kick in. I have stated in the past that a friend with a Ph.D. in biology has mentioned that his colleagues are not convinced of ‘evolution,’ but they just cannot accept the alternative: A God in heaven whom ALL must appear before. This is telling and I suspect rather true.

The doves that hang out in your back yard are still seen in pairs, a guided life by the hand of a Creator. God changes not, His word is true, and every man is a liar.


Troubling to see all the anti-science posts here. Science and religion should not be at odds. Scientists have nothing to do with religion (or at least shouldn’t), and people of faith have nothing to do with science, unless they’re practicing science. Of course there is scientific evidence for evolution. Of course there is evidence for intelligent design. The key is that these are different kinds of evidence.

And folks, stating that there are unanswered questions within scientific theories is pointing out the obvious. Theories that have unanswered questions can still be excellent theories. And yes, scientists, global evolution is a theory. Stating that it’s a fact is misrepresentation. Small-scale evolution is a fact. We have directly observed the process of natural selection. But to say that the global theory of evolution (over millions of years) is a fact is just wrong. Let’s not misrepresent the science and let’s not misrepresent what religion can say about science.


People need to understand that the word “theory” is much the same as the word “faith." Both are effectively the practice of weighing unknowable variables within a context of knowable facts and making a decision based on them.

The theory of evolution is just like the teachings of any religion regarding creation. Insofar as you can prove one with facts, you can prove the other. Both make gravity-defying leaps over massive holes of lack of evidence.

Anyone attempting to pit one versus the other might as well argue with another individual as to which color is better, orange or pink.

louie louie

If the evolutionary process takes millions of years, it is only because it is a blind process that uses random trial and error to produce genetic improvements. Under the right conditions, it could happen very quickly, so there is no reason that it has to take millions of years. If today’s scientists really understood how evolution works, they would be able to speed up the process by creating the right conditions for it to happen. They would then have reproducible scientific evidence for evolution. A scientific theory does not become fact until it is reproducible. The fact that they cannot provide reproducible evidence for evolution does not mean it's false, but if it's not, that means their understanding of the process is still very limited. And it still requires faith to believe in it.

That said, proof of evolution would not disprove God or the Bible (although it would disprove some interpretations of the Bible). Even if scientists were able to intelligently design an experiment that proves evolution, it would do nothing to disprove intelligent design or explain how life began in the first place. It would still leave open the idea that God created life in a primitive state and used evolution as a tool to produce more complicated life forms in an orderly fashion over time in a manner similar to the 7 time periods described in Genesis. “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl…” could imply evolution.


I’m having real problems on this issue. Both sides have some good points. And both sides, including those in the comments that are so hell-bent that their side is right, refuse to listen the other argument and just say they’re wrong.

The interviewer, despite being a little extreme in his religion, says evolution also seems to be based on belief. But it did look like he narrowed down the interviewees to just the idiots. Plus, he quotes the Bible when the Bible itself has been censored (e.g., the Mary scriptures).

These things about lizards evolving to a point where they breed with each other I didn’t know and would be interested to hear more. I’ve also heard that supposedly there’s DNA evidence to prove that dinosaurs evolved from chickens. There was a picture shown but nothing was said about it. Are they saying there’s no evidence and those claiming DNA evidence were lying?

I do not believe humans evolved from monkeys. I personally don’t want to believe it…kinda nasty. I believe in god, not religion. But I’m open minded to hear both sides. I’d like to know. I also feel it’s wrong that they’re keeping intelligent design from colleges. That’s not right, they should hear both sides. Science was supposed to be a way to open your mind, not close it. It seems just as bad as religion lately.



Most recent

Annie Wersching, 'Star Trek,' Bosch,' and '24' actress, dead at 45

All Articles