Seth Andrews and his colleagues (and I) review “The Atheist Delusion”, Ray Comfort’s new anti-evolution and pro-God movie

I previewed creationist Ray Comfort’s new movie, “The Atheist Delusion“, in July, but didn’t know the contents. Now that it’s out, we see that, like his previous movie (“Evolution versus God“) this one again takes the form of an “atheist-stumper,” in which, like his previous movie, Comfort asks non-scientists scientific questions that they can’t answer, thereby luring them to Jesus. In this case his Big God Question is this, “If a book implies a designer of the book, then doesn’t DNA ( the “instruction book for life”) imply a DNA Designer—ergo the Christian God? There are other “stumpers” as well, like “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” and “How can you evolve a complex eye?” (that old poser was answered by Darwin himself). He raises the same God of the Gaps argument with the heart. All of these questions, of course, have scientific answers, but the person on the street is unlikely to know them.

I guess the movie didn’t do so well, as the complete movie, about an hour long, quickly went to YouTube, and I’ve put it below. Lawrence Krauss appears at 13:15, and has some good answers for Comfort, but of course he ignores them.

Seth Andrews reviews the movie below in one of his video podcasts, and called upon me to deal with some of Comfort’s assertions. I was deeply jet-lagged, since it was taped the morning after I got back from Hong Kong. Nevertheless, I did my best; my own segment starts at 46:45 and runs till 56:30; but watch the whole thing if you have time.


  1. Posted November 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Comfort has been desperately trying to seek comfort since unleashing his theological banana hypothesis. Discredited but woefully intransigent. Some fruits are edible, others are indelible.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted November 29, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      Oh yes, ‘what the banana was designed to fit’. For some reason this sends my wife into hysterics every time it comes up, but I suspect she has a different meaning of the word ‘banana’ in mind.



  2. rickflick
    Posted November 29, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    The take away from Comfort’s film, for me, is that there are many people who are ready victims of poor arguments simply because they don’t know how to think rationally and critically. And some who are not too bad at thinking, but who prefer to delude themselves to cut down on there effort at making sense of the world. Then there are those who are more than willing to take advantage of all those ignorant others to achieve their own ends. The most egregious cases I’ve seen come from TV ministries. It is so blatant it’s hard to believe such a hard sell could persuade so many to victimhood. I feel certain there must be a way of labeling what they do as legal fraud(without jeopardizing the first amendment) and stop the absurdity.

  3. GBJames
    Posted November 29, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    It is all too depressing.

  4. Posted November 29, 2016 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    if DNA is a “book” then the author was a moron considering how much it fails. Thus, if God was the author, God is an idiot.

    This is the video they so wanted to try to give to atheists that they were going to pony up $5 Subway gift certificates for the atheist convention if anyone would take one of these things. Seems that didn’t work so well, for want of a $125 fee to have a demonstration at the Washington Mall.

  5. stuartcoyle
    Posted November 29, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I wish these reviewers would stop trying to imitate an Australian/New Zealand accent. If they do I promise to stop trying to imitate an American one, y’all.

    • JohnnieCanuck
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 4:58 am | Permalink

      It must grate, I’m sure, to listen to them. They are going for a caricature of the man. His accent does stand out to Americans, so that is a target for them to poke fun at.

      One thing I think is for certain, he would be similarly mocked no matter what country his accent came from.

    • Ralph
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 6:03 am | Permalink

      It’s interesting that if Comfort were Chinese, and they parodied a Chinese accent, I think it would widely be considered racist.

      I can’t really pin down why this bad mimicry seems annoying but not racist – is it because everyone involved is white, so it’s considered mimicry of part of your own group who just speak in a funny way? What if Ray Comfort were an aboriginal Australian? Would they still feel comfortable mocking his Australian accent if he were black?

      I’m not expressing any opinion here, just pondering.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      Were you to try equating the New Zealand / Aussie accent down this end of the world, your life expectancy in either country would be short.

      And painful.



  6. Charles Minus
    Posted November 29, 2016 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for posting this. Laughs are few and far between these days. I love the God Awful Movies/Scathing Atheist guys and find them to be a welcome relief.

  7. Posted November 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Re Cardinal Pell, mentioned in the 44th minute, there is a question over his complicity in covering up child abuse, but I don’t think he’s accused of committing physical abuse himself.

  8. Pikolo
    Posted November 29, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”

    The stupidity of this question never ceases to amaze me. Fish have eggs, don’t they? And if your definition of an egg involves something more like a typical egg, try reptiles. Both came long before birds

    • stuartcoyle
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 3:49 am | Permalink

      I have four chickens. I bought the chickens before I got any eggs from them.

      I bought an egg from the shop and never got a chicken from it.


    • pali
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      It’s easier than that. A chicken is a creature that, by definition, hatches from an egg – therefore there had to first be an egg for the first chicken to hatch from, otherwise there would never have been a first chicken.

      The question only gets tricky if the question becomes “which came first, the egg or creatures that reproduce via eggs?” To which, the correct answer is that neither came first, that populations and the methods they use for reproduction evolve together, and that ever since cellular life evolved the DNA has encased itself in protective layers of varying types at all stages of development – focusing on any one layer is being pedantic.

      Of course, anyone who thinks that the chicken-egg question is some great brain teaser isn’t likely to have the second ready as a fall-back, so you probably won’t need it.

    • JohnnieCanuck
      Posted November 30, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      A thought experiment (how much trouble could one cause?) :

      Consider a chicken today and the egg it hatched from. We completely analyse its genome and set it as a reference. Then we imagine being able to repeat this for the mother hen. Any differences are checked to see if they are sufficient to render the ancestor ‘not a chicken’.

      Repeat the imaginary examination of each ancestor’s genome until it is agreed that the animal does not meet our genetic definition of a chicken. This bird laid an egg with one or more discrepancies such that a ‘chicken’ will hatch from it. This is the first ‘chicken’ egg which came before the first ‘chicken’ that hatched from it.

      Anything this simple is not going to be accurate for something as soft as biology. Evolution is defined in terms of allele frequency in a population, not a single pedigree chain. The ‘not a chicken’ ancestor probably could still interbreed with the ‘chicken’ and doesn’t that mean they are still the same species?

      Do retired electronics designers dream of dinosaurs that still walk the Earth? In other words, IANAB.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted November 30, 2016 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        That’s undoubtedly correct. There is no genetic change between the egg and the chicken, whereas there is a genetic change between the chicken and the egg.

        Therefore the first True Chicken must have occurred as an egg (laid by a proto-chicken).


  9. Herb Hunter
    Posted December 1, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    “What Professor Krauss completely overlooks is the external nature of the information encoded into the DNA molecule: a complete set of software instructions directing the formation and reproduction of human beings both male and female and all other living things.”

    If Krauss’s interviewer gave the professor the opportunity to respond to the above sentence, it was conveniently left on the editing room floor.

%d bloggers like this: