Another simple-minded argument from creationists

Kirk Cameron And Bananas - Watch more free videos

A journalist with France 24 in Paris sent me this video (yes that is Kirk Cameron, he became a Christian evangelical at age 17 and is a partner in the evangelical Christian ministry The Way of the Master) and asked me to defend its conclusions. While I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion to the French people, this video, which is several years old, is beyond defending.

The idea that the banana proves the existence of God simply because its shape makes it easy for humans to hold and eat is preposterous. Such arguments give all Christians, especially evangelicals, a bad name. Using the logic of this video, one could easily argue that the pear, pineapple, or apple, to name a few, disprove the existence of God because they are not as convenient to hold or eat.

Nor does the conclusion reached by Cameron and his buddy, Ray Comfort, take into account the wild banana. The banana we eat today is the result of thousands of years of domestication and cultivation. The wild banana, on the other hand, is not as easy to eat, is full of hard seeds, and is shaped differently. Also, if the banana is so perfect, why is it is so difficult to ship without damage?

This is typical of the simple-minded thought processes of some creationists. They are so convinced that the universe was created in a way imagined by some Jewish priest 6,000 years ago that they will grasp at every straw to try to make things fit their preconceived notions. Imagine what life would be like if doctors relied on 6,000-year-old Jewish texts when performing medical procedures.

Another tired argument of some creationists is that complex items must have a creator (of course that ignores the fact that evolution does not rule out a creator). For example, Cameron, in an appearance on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor," brought out the tired creationist argument about the eye. He argues, as do many creationists (including Bill O'Reilly, who called the Big Bang Theory and loony idea), that the eye could only have been created by God and not through evolution because of its complexity. That, of course, ignores all the various types of eyes in nature and how they are uniquely adapted to each species' needs. This is exactly the kind of behavior an evolutionist would expect to see.

What Cameron and other creationists need to understand is that just because something is complex does not mean it must have been created by some magical cloud being. Besides, such arguments by these evangelicals are insulting to the omnipotent power of God. Of course, an omnipotent God could create the universe through evolution. Cameron called the idea of evolution as unbelievable, which seems to demonstrate a lack of faith in the omnipotence of God.

That being said, the idea that God just magically had the universe appear in its current form is ludicrous, especially considering that every single pieces of scientific evidence points otherwise and that the rest of the universe operates in a predictable, orderly fashion following strict laws.

Seems Cameron is as poor of an intellect as he was as an actor. Maybe he should try infomercials.