Quick straw poll. You're going to bring out a new edition of "On The Origin of Species", but to differentiate it from all the other editions, and to give some background to the sociopolitical ramifications of the theories of natural selection & shared descent, it is decided to have a new foreword by a leading scholar in the field.

So - who do you pick?

a) Ken Miller - leading evolutionary biologist & Christian; as witness in Dover v Kitzmiller gave vital testimony

b) Dan Dennett - philosopher, scholar on evolutionary biology & cognitive science, sort of looks like Darwin

c) Sean B Carroll - evolutionary biologist, expert author on DNA record for evolution

Bonus comedy option:

d) Ray Comfort - evangelical leader of Way of the Master ministry, famed for persistent ignorance of basic scientific principles and making weird apparently unintentionally lascivious statements involving bananas.

Obvious, really.

Well, the underdog contestant from New Zealand pips them all to the post! Four ran.

Admittedly, he won because he started the race a day early.

As a leading evangelical, Ray may be a slightly unusual choice. He's got a bit of a reputation of slightly odd behaviour (including his ministry videos where he interviews 'Darwinists' who turn out to be random students he blindsides with questions on the Big Bang). He constantly conflates Darwinism with nihilism, Big Bang cosmology with Nothing=Everything, atheists with Darwinists, Darwinism as a religion, bananas as divine providence, and essentially constructs the whole of science as one massive strawman.

He's famous for his Banana=Atheist Nightmare video (YouTube is full of mirrors made before he took it down, but is now claiming it was intended to be humorous. Whatever, Ray), saying that the banana was proof of Divine Design. When it was pointed out to him that bananas are actually one of the most selectively cultivated fruits around (I wiki searched it in seconds, but then I'm a slave to laborious & tedious research like that) he apologised, then refuses to alter his argument one iota.

So, stellar credentials, m'kay?

M'kay.

He's now given out his free copies of "On the Origin of Species", with helpful introduction (which used to be available on his Living Waters site, but as of writing this morning has now vanished) to students in unspecified universities. The NCSE has started the Don't Diss Darwin site, which includes a superb analysis of Ray's introduction. But anyone who can write that "DNA... presents a formidable challenge to Darwinian evolution" doesn't really deserve this level of attention. It's traditional Gish Gallop material, and it's wearing pretty thin.

But even so, attacking Darwin as a racist, a Nazi and whatever other pejorative you can think of, doesn't augment your argument, Ray. 'Darwinism' that you speak of (the theory of Natural Selection) is a mechanism for Evolution. Evolution is. Darwin didn't invent it. I don't idolise Darwin - to speak of scientists having equal faith in Darwin is impotent conflation and projection.

Ray's introduction is nothing but anti-intellectual waffle, an absolute insult to true scholarship and critical thinking.

Want a nice example of "science changed it's mind therefore we were right all along" + a little blackmail for eternal damnation? Here's a typical video from them. And apparently us evil 'Darwinists' think we human primates are related to primates oh noes.

A false dichotomy is not an intellectually honest move. If the Left Wing party is shown to make a mistake, it doesn't automatically mean the Right Wing party are correct.

Ray has had this pointed out to him countless times; but, like his demonstrable ignorance when it comes to the evolution of sex (he repeatedly claims that females of species had to evolve separately, with more more than a whiff of sexism there). If someone who has had leading experts show his flaws in reasoning refuses to update his argument in the face of evidence and reason, he has no right to parade his ignorance in order to 'teach both sides of the debate'. If anyone finds a copy of this edition, could you check the foreword to see if it was scribbled in with crayons?

Science has to change in order to preserve integrity in the conclusions; it's not a fixed state. It's also not fair game to play silly semantic games over design - as Paley's Pal, Ray is fond of using the line 'a painter needs a painter' etc. As PZ Myers points out, does that mean thunder needs a thunderer?

Ray is, of course, perfectly entitled to his beliefs; whether it's that Darwin was a proto-fascist, closet misogynist or most egregiously an atheist who recanted on his deathbed. All erroneous, but that doesn't really matter. It's when he views himself up to the level of debate & discourse against scientists schooled in peer-reviewed journals and rigorous academic & scientific discipline that I take issue.

If I was the author of a foreword to "On The Origin of Species", I'd be mortified if I had to have basic science explained to me by an Arts graduate.

Part 2 is now online.