http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Shows the nastiness of the Bible and any real God the Bible points to. Any Christian who has reservations about Comfort's propaganda is a naughty 'compromiser' who is refusing to be as biblical as the biblical Ham thinks they should be. Even if the reason for 'compromise' is being fair towards alternative viewpoints or tolerant of observed reality and the claims derived from rigorous careful scientific investigation.
"The criticism from atheists was almost immediate, for Comfort’s well-publicized film powerfully challenged their entire worldview." That's funny, a Christian (exact identity unknown but who was once a YEC) has asked in an email I received "Ashley, has anybody at a evolution-denial website simply admitted that they were disappointed that the new Ray Comfort film gave them NO evidence against evolution? (Surely home-schoolers, for example, were led to believe that they would learn new "tips" for debunking evolution)".http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-revie ... ion-vs-god
In fact the example Ham is referring to is an article that is very wary of Comfort's film NOT because this 'compromiser' accepts evolution. Though he is indeed a 'compromiser' by not being a YEC like Ham, he in fact does not accept evolution. But Dr Jeff Zweerink points out: the video's "questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution". He adds: "I was looking for two specific things: (1) does the film persuasively debunk evolution? and (2) does it present an accurate portrayal of the scientific community, specifically of those who embrace evolution? Unfortunately, Evolution vs. God does neither. In fact, it may well damage Christian outreach to scientists".
The writer appears to respect Christians who have a science background and believe in evolution. He concludes: "Atheists could easily produce a similar video making Christians look stupid. If, as a Christian, you would find such a video objectionable, then please do not promote Evolution vs. God".
So does Mr Ham have ANY regard for Dr Zweerink''s comments?
Of course not! "When Comfort asks for specific evidence of this type of molecules-to-man change necessary for evolution, none of the answers he’s given demonstrate a change from one kind to another—plain and simple." But has Ham seen the full unedited footage eg of answers by P Z Myers? I can guess the answer. I assume one of the scientists interviewed pointed out that processes that take as long as millions of years could not be directly observed in the here and now.
Ham is also predictably dismissive of this:http://biologos.org/blog/a-review-of-ev ... to-believe
Ham stamps his foot and insists that Comfort's film is 'powerful'. Well let's see if anybody eg one of the scientists or students interviewed says that it has caused them to embrace Christianity or, specifically, young Earth creationism!
Of course, going back to the question which that email raised, internet YECs on eg Ham's Facebook page are either too blinkered to realise that the film actually fails to do what it says on the tin, or (should any YECs have such discernment) they are keeping their views to themselves or at least off the internet.
The lesson for me here is that anything praised by Ken Ham is likely to be of dubious value.
I do NOT think that Reasons to Believe are being critical simply because they are old Earth creationists whilst Ham and Comfort are 'young' Earth creationists.
I can't see any mention of this RTB article on Comfort's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort
However, Comfort DOES flag this:http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1017805
He writes: "CHECK THIS OUT!!!! American Atheists, Inc., Challenges Filmmaker to Release Unedited Interviews!
American Atheists, Inc., today tweeted to its 31,000 followers for producer Ray Comfort to release unedited footage of interviews he conducted with four evolutionary scientists for his new film".
I predict that Comfort will duck and weave and make excuses for NOT releasing the full unedited footage.