Isn’t that Precious?

Ray Comfort expounds on the evolution of sex:

Sexual reproduction would never have begun to evolve, and would never have continued to evolve to become as sophisticated as it is today in many plants and animals, unless it offered a significant evolutionary advantage. As to what this advantage might be, however, is still the subject of continuing debate in the scientific community. Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation” (

In other words, they have no idea why pre-humans stopped splitting in half and started having sex, or why male and female exist throughout creation.

Uh, Ray, you didn’t comprehend the comment, and your response is so completely nonsensical that you are providing the atheist community with plenty of new ammunition to claim that Christianity must only be believed by complete ignoramuses. In other words, you have done more here to damage the body of Christ than any of your atheist detractors could possibly accomplish.

Here’s a mini-lesson in the evolution of sexual reproduction based on what we observe in living organisms. Start with organisms that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria. That would be the “splitting in half” bit, where a copy of the genetic material is made before the split, and each half gets a copy. Some bacteria today can also exchange genetic information with each other in a process called conjugation. With eukaryotic single-celled organisms and some multi-celled organisms, one sees a variety of forms of reproduction. There are organisms that reproduce asexually at some points in their life cycle, and produce gametes for sexual reproduction in other parts of the life cycle. Gametes join to form a new organism, completing sexual reproduction. The production of gametes in some organisms involves a situation called isogamy, meaning everybody produces gametes of about the same size. This seems clearly to be the earlier situation. The specialized or derived form of sexual reproduction has organisms with two strategies for gamete production: produce lots of small gametes (males) or produce a smaller number of larger gametes (females). This is seen in lots of invertebrate lineages. Vertebrates are chordates, and all of the chordates can reproduce sexually with unequal-sized gametes. Tunicates, an invertebrate taxon within Chordata, also still may reproduce asexually, too. Fish reproduce sexually, with some species being hermaphrodites, and others may have alternation of gender in individuals through its life history. In reptiles, gender is fixed throughout life (AFAIK), though some species of lizards manage to reproduce parthenogenetically. In mammals, sexual reproduction is exclusively by exchange of gametes between males and females. That includes primates… which is what humans are.

So, evolutionary science does not and never has asserted that male and female humans reproduced asexually. Humans inherited their method of reproduction from previously existing primates, who already were using exchange of gametes between males and females. Nor is it true that “male and female exist throughout creation”, because we know of sexually reproducing species that are nonetheless not split into male and female forms.

St. Augustine criticized Ray Comfort… about sixteen centuries before Ray Comfort was born:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Listen to Augustine, Ray; learn what you presume to criticize.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Data scientist in real estate and econometrics. Blogger. Speaker. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

4 thoughts on “Isn’t that Precious?

  • 2008/12/02 at 12:44 pm

    Seriously Wes, have you ever encountered a Creationist yet who took St. Augustine’s wise words to heart?

    The problem is that they think they are knowledgeable. Their very incompetance and their belief that if they are wrong about this that the Bible itself is wrong, prevents them from knowing they are not.

  • 2008/12/05 at 10:03 pm

    Did you try posting this to Ray’s blog?

  • 2008/12/06 at 8:42 am

    I don’t usually post places where I have no confidence that the comment will be preserved.

  • 2008/12/14 at 1:05 pm

    Wow! Now I understand why Ray Comfort is a metaphor for stupid on scientific blogs.

    He also edited his blog to say, “Mankind (in their pre-human state)… reproduced asexually” without noting the edit.

    And those “rules for atheists” — garbage!

    And the blog name — lies in advertising.

Comments are closed.