Kirk Cameron and Ray are at it again!

If you pay any attention to the creation vs. evolution debate, you know that Ray and his clone Kirk Cameron are releasing Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in its entirety, just days before its 150th anniversary, with one catch. Ray is going to put his own foreword in the beginning of the book. All 50 pages of it.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. I've gotten to the point where I believe that Ray is totally void of any kind of critical thinking skills. I've lost count of the number of questions that I've asked him at his blog, all of which went unanswered. I know that Ray's a very busy person, what with all the books to sell and money to steal from otherwise good, honest people. But he can't convince me that he's so busy that he can't take five minutes to answer even one of my questions.

Ray and Kirk plan to go to the University of California at Berkley to distribute their book to students, as well as students in the top 100 universities in the country. I want a ringside seat if he comes to Penn State. Now that would be entertainment!

Meanwhile, the goons over at the WND is tripping over their tongues in defense of this ruse from Kirk and Ray. Cameron states, "An entire generation is being brainwashed by atheistic evolution without even hearing the alternative; and it's radically changing the culture of our nation." Irony of ironies! Once again, Cameron doesn't, nor has he ever, stated the fact that there are many Christians including geneticist Francis Collins, biologist Ken Miller, and paleontologist Robert Bakker, who accept evolutionary biology as fact.

Besides, Kirk, everyone in the United States who is capable of learning has heard about the creation narrative(s) in the Bible. A poll conducted in 2004 by ABC News revealed that 60% of those surveyed believe that Noah's flood was a historic event, and about 61% believe in Biblical creation. Ergo, we've all heard your alternative, Kirk. It's bullshit, and people are starting to realize it.

The introduction is also supposed to mention Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon as examples of scientists who believe in God. But typical of Ray, what he doesn't mention is these men were occultists and alchemists. The article also mentions Copernicus. A word to the buffoon who wrote this article, it's spelled Nicolaus Copernicus, not Nikolas Capernicus.

Kirk and Ray also want to discuss the intricacies of DNA. I don't know if they knew it or not, but DNA was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson is an atheist, while Crick, who died in 2004, was an agnostic "with a strong inclination towards atheism". But, again, this is something that you'll never hear come from the mouths of Ray and Kirk.

I'm still scratching my head over what Ray thinks will happen when this fiasco takes place. Ray, if you're reading this, seriously - what the hell? People, particularly students, are starting to realize that Biblical creationism is demonstrably false, hence the reason so many are starting to think for themselves. Do you think these same students are just going to drop what they're doing, confess that you're right and every scientist who accepts evolution is wrong? Do you really think you're going to make a difference?

Again, Kirk and Ray, take my advice. Instead of blathering on and on and on and on and on about how scientists who've dedicated their lives to the scientific method push a lie in order to save their jobs (which is itself a lie), get an education. Go to an accredited university like Penn State, the University of Chicago, M.I.T., Arizona State, or USC, and study any of these sciences:

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Genetics
Geography
Paleontology
Astronomy
Geology
Seismology

After you've attained a Bachelor of Science in any of these disciplines, then you can make a reasonable argument against evolutionary biology. But just repeating that creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution doesn't make is so. Again, creationism can retreat to the safety of a creator when all else fails and the evidence is stacked against it. And since science deals with what we can empirically observe in a natural world, a supernatural creator is not a scientific hypothesis.

One year from now when your book has been all but forgotten, I'd like for you to reflect on how monumental of a failure this debacle has been for the both of you, and everyone at AiG.

YouTuber ZOMGitsCriss summarized it best. Hit play.