“Behold: the atheist’s nightmare” (a banana) [ video ]

Before I say anything about it, just watch this video first:

This is so over the top that, if you don’t know better, you’re likely to think this Dr. Banana here is just a parody of Dr. Woodpecker over on GodTube.

Believe it or not, though, these guys are deadly serious. They were even hosted on Nightline (yes, formerly Ted Koppel’s respectable news show on ABC) representing God in one of those God vs. anti-God debates. You can see it here (10½ min.):

click for full sized image

You really need to see this if you don’t want to miss Kirk Cameron’s (yes, from Growing Pains) use of the Crocoduck as a slam-dunk “scientific” disproof of evolution.

But the crocoduck is only one of several examples in Kirk’s arsenal of non-existent “transitional forms,” such as the bullfrog and the sheepdog (see the debate video):

Cameron explains the point of condescending to debate with atheists in this appearance on The O’Reilly Factor (with O’Reilly mentioning that he had defeated Richard Dawkins in a debate — but since Dawkins didn’t change his mind despite having lost the argument, O’Reilly was left wondering: What’s the point of doing these debates?)


  1. Posted July 28, 2008 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    I think you’ve come to this rather late. Ray Comfort has backtracked on his obvious seriousness about the banana as “the atheist’s nightmare”.

    I blogged about this a while back and added a couple more you’ll want to look at – the peanut butter argument, and also one clever YouTube reply to the banana argument with a pineapple! :)

  2. reluctantfundie
    Posted July 29, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Eep, as a theist and a believer in Intelligent Design, this argument suuuurx badly. Very badly. The banana is the atheist’s nightmare? I suppose the pineapple is the theist’s bad dream?

  3. Kevin Currie
    Posted July 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for posting some about this. Brian Sapient (one of those who debated Kirk and Ray) used to be a good acquaintence of mine, and though he is much more dogmatic in his beliefs than I, he and Kelly really did tear through the Way of the Master.

    Ouch! There is so many things wrong with the ‘banana as atheist’s nightmare’ bit that it is quite seriously scary that someone would use it as an argument (I would hae entertained it for 10 seconds and tossed it aside for fear of people laughing at me. Apparently, Ray Comfort is so used to people laughing at him that this is a poor incentive.)

    Dr. Pangloss, anyone? Doesn’t Ray and Kirk’s “argument” sound a bit like something already parodied hundreds of years ago? Could they have also joined Pangloss in saying that the nose is the atheist’s nightmare because it was so obviously designed to hold glasses?

    The second problem – highlighted by the pineapple – is also a big problem for intelligent design: the minute you hold up an example of perfect design to illustrate the point of theism, you open your nose up to others bringing in examples of inane design as ‘proof’ of atheism.

    The third problem is that the ‘anana argument’ is (like the first cause argument) circular. One could say that the banana exhibits perfect design, as if it was designed for us to eat it. One could conversely say, though, that if it was not conducive to us eating it, we would not eat it, and hence, not even think of using it as an example of design. (f it were not easy for us to grab, peal, and munch, we simply would not eat it as a raw snack.)

    Now, I wonder if Ray and Kirk can explain the plethora of berries and shoots in the wilderness that are very easy for us to munch on but are hazardous to our health. If God designed the banana just for us, and we know this because it is so easy to munch on, are those berries and shoots – which are just as easy to munch on – also designed for us? If so, why are they poisonous? If not, why are they so easy to munch? Either way, one of the ‘tenets’ of the ‘banana argument’ have to give.

    I hope no one uses the banana argument in bio class. Let’s limit it to the nutrition piece of health class.

  4. Kevin Currie
    Posted July 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    I just looked at Dr. McGrath’s second link. I highly reccomend that anyone who wants to be annoyed and flabergasted look at the fourth youtube video down on this link – the one about the ‘peanut butter argument.’

    In it, Duane Gish (of all people) suggests that any theory of life from non-life without the guiding hand of god is a fairy tale.

    As a scientifically literate person, this annoys me to no end.

    If the question is whether it is possible to get life from non-life, the answer quite simply is: yes. The Miller-Urey experiments did that; the only real debate is about whether they properly replicated the early conditions of earth. But the fact is that they proved that it is possible to create organic compounds from inorganic compounds. The only ‘scientist’ who says differently is Jonathan Wells (and he doesn’t say differently; he just lies by omission.) http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

    Once again, the ‘god of the gaps’ theory said that life from non-life is simply impossible. Science has gone on to show that it is POSSIBLE. The ONLY questions are: whether it is mathematically plausible, and whether it can be done given the constraints of the early earth’s atmosphere. In typical creationist style, though, the video simply advises us that research into this area is fruitless because (wrongly) life from non-life is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Of course, that is bad theology too! The bible suggests that god breathed life into dust and out came us. Well, God took a non-living speck of dust and put ‘life’ into it (and who knows what disembodied ‘life’ is or if the concept is even intelligible). Therefore, God created living things from non-living matter. (I am not sure how to get around the FACT that if (p1) dust is not living; and (p2) God breathed life into it, that the logical inference is that (c) god created living things from non-living things.)

    And I have not even mentioned the fact that evolution in no way stands or falls on abiogenesis! ATHEISTIC evolution stands or falls on abiogenesis.

  5. reluctantfundie
    Posted August 9, 2008 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    it’s Chuck Missler, not Duane Gish.

  6. Kevin Currie
    Posted August 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    In the video, the first suggestion that life coming from non-life being a ‘fairy tale’ is Duane Gish. Yes, Missler starred in the majority of the vieo, and I certainly should have stated that. To be honest, when I wrote the post, I could not recall the main ‘actor”s’ name, and I remembered that the first ‘fairy tale’ statement came from the King of Creation, Duane Gish.

  7. Posted July 27, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Hi, all is going fine here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s genuinely good, keep up writing.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: