Ray can get away with a lot of nonsense in his foreword, assuming it's only read by people who support his position. However, thanks to the NCSE and other bloggers, hopefully the scientific and educational communities will sit up and take notice of the blatant distortions and misrepresentations going on.

But when he's in dialogue with a proper scientist, then there's much less room to maneuver. Especially in print, as Gish Gallops are much harder to do when there's a paper trail.

So I highly recommend reading the full 4-part exchange between Scott & Comfort. Remember, this is Rays chance to shine, or at least redeem himself. I'm just sorry that Kirk Cameron, famous for being the first Muppet to be created with human skin, doesn't contribute his intellectual force to the discussion.

Part 1 (Ray Comfort defends...)

Part 2 (How Creationist 'Origin' Distorts Darwin)

Part 3 (Ray Comfort Responds)

Part 4 (Scott: There you go again...)

So you go into print against a heavyweight in the scientific community - you're going to pull out the big guns. Those unassailable arguments, right?

Well, make up your own mind whether Comfort succeeds. But I'm pretty sure if those are the best arguments he's got, then he's in no position to criticise evolutionary theory.

Let's look at some of them:

If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) "an ignorant fool," why are so many feeling threatened by what I've written? Surely, the Introduction will be ignorance and foolishness, and simply confirm the students' presuppositions that intelligent design isn't worthy of even a first look.

That's the thing, Ray. ID has been shown to be one big Argument from Personal Ignorance; it has been repeatedly demonstrated in legal cases and debates in the past 20-or-so years to hold no position in science or education. As watered-down Creationism, it's just a disingenuous attempt to sneak partisan belief into impartial science education. And remember, your introduction, full of ignorance & foolishness, doesn't necessarily "confirm the students' presuppositions". Not every idea is worthy of a platform; how much time in a proper educational establishment would we waste going over every single preposterous and self-indulgent crackpot notion?

When Ray quotes Darwin, it may be worth keeping TalkOrigins open at the Quote Mine project page. Ray does this frequently with Newton & Einstein as well (others do so with Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker"), rejecting their science but happily quote mining anything that even tenuously supports his position, however dishonestly.

He's also fond of Strawmen arguments. Like, oh I don't know, this one:

The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility. Professor Dawkins believes that nothing created everything, and his belief is a big intellectual embarrassment to his followers.

RAY I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN HOW MUCH IS INCORRECT ABOUT THESE SENTENCES.

Maybe Skeptical Hippo can help me.

Much more succinct. Thanks, Skeptical Hippo.

There are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. None. I deal with hundreds of atheists every day through my blog, so I can predict the response: "Of course there are fossils! There are millions of fossils, you unscientific idiot!!" They are right. There are millions of fossils, but they are the fossils of God's creation and have nothing to do with evolution. Again, there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. That's what is called "the missing link."

This is roughly equivalent to saying that footprints don't prove that someone walked in a certain direction. You could fill in every single space between the prints, and there'd still be some gap. It's Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.

But fine, you don't even need fossils to discuss evolution, because science discovered something interesting called DNA just over 50 years ago. Probably a bit too recent to be noticed by the Creationist intellectual elite, though.

From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've.

Yeah, damn scientific uncertainty. If only they were so confident, then we'd believe them. You have no idea how education works, Ray, none.

Now, again, I'm an Arts graduate. It takes me a bit longer to grasp scientific concepts than actual scientists, but I persevere and give it a good shot. So for Ray to continually make the same ridiculous pronouncements is quite frustrating. Such as:

For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.

His reasoning can be (sort of) explained in the following line:

Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half evolved.

'Half evolved'? From whose standpoint, Ray?

This only works if you view the whole of life as a miraculous creation, perfectly formed. But even a basic thought towards common ancestry and descent with modification would show why this is wrong. Nature may not be red in tooth and claw, but it still is far from perfect. Just because you can't think of a better-adapted trait doesn't mean that there isn't one. I would place money on Ray's image of evolution being literally half an eye, bisected at the cornea.

But not only do we see this mature completion in creation; we see it displayed in the fossil record. It reveals that each animal was complete.

Actually, Ray, if we took as glib a look at the fossil record as you do, we'd surmise that each animal was born without skin.

Please read the whole exchange, Eugenie Scott has some great responses. But, as I said in Part 1, of all the people up to the level of discourse as Scott, Comfort is very far down the list. And I haven't even mentioned Godwin's Law yet.