Non-apologies and non-corrections

Back on the subject of the travesty that is the new, abridged 304-page edition of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species being spread across American schools through Ray Comfort and boytoy Kirk Cameron, I’ve just come across a post from Comfort himself (on his blog) where he tries to assuage us ticked-off atheists (and others with scruples in general) in assuring us that he’s now toned down the anti-ToE, anti-Darwin message of his 50-page intro. Unfortunately, as is customary with Ray, he completely misses the friggin’ point – possibly worse than ever.

It's now heading for 100 universities and 100,000 copies, and it will be the entire book (every jot and tittle).

Except for over half the contents, which were necessarily taken out to reduce the book from its original 600-plus pages to 304. And I’m certain that no important info will have been removed, of course. Naturally.

Thanks to advice from Atheists and others, the new Introduction will address Darwin's "racism"--and how he was truly a gentle-man who was admantly against slavery.

And it will qualify his apparant denegration of women. Besides, the moral character of Charles Darwin is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution, just as the Theory of Relativity should stand on its own merits, and not on the morality of Albert Einstein.

Here, Comfort is completely missing the point. (Actually, if I didn’t know him better, I’d say he was setting up red herrings just to try and present his efforts in a benign light that they do not deserve.) First of all, that your “introduction” makes false and long-debunked claims against the man Darwin himself is totally irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution – like you’ve just said yourself.

Which brings us to my second point: if attacks on the ToE’s father himself (even if false) are irrelevant, and you actually admit to this, then why are they still in there, regardless of how you may change them around a bit? The fact that you both realize that they are ad hominem accusations, and that you nevertheless choose to leave them in, demonstrates how your intro is really just one large ad hominem against Darwin himself.

I will also make it clear that Hitler abused his theory, and is also irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

Again, if its irrelevant, then why mention it?

I want this Introduction to be fair-minded, free from prejudice against Darwin, no straw men or quote-mining. I'm sure many of you won't believe that, but it's the truth.

You know what? I actually do believe that Comfort is being honest in what he says, that he believes it is true and that he is right. That’s the major problem here. He is so used to being dishonest, it’s been a natural reaction to him for so very long, that he literally doesn’t even notice it anymore; it’s ingrained in his very nature, mind and words, tainting everything he says, everything he does.

And as is the case with most Creationists, I daresay. (Most, because there are undoubtedly some, if not plenty, who are more-than-aware of how blatantly dishonest and hypocritical they are, but just don’t care.)