I don't want to be some snob. I'm as ardent as anyone in defense of creationism.

But this kind of simplistic thinking doesn't do anyone any good.

If you claim that the banana is the atheist's nightmare, you implicitly concede that atheism can explain many other things-- when in reality, if the Christian faith is true, atheism doesn't adequately explain anything.

And the argument (which was treated by Hume) takes no account of the effects of the fall.

When you let your case depend on showing what a great designer is based upon any particular thing in the world, you make man the judge of God's work in creation, leave out the fact that sin has marred it, and implicitly scorn the positive effects of man taking dominion over creation (e.g., through husbandry).

As far as the "evolution" of the banana, I'll be impressed when it grows some eyes.

Though he's right that it was designed perfectly by God. The fact that it has a slippery peal that many are tempted to leave on the ground means that God must approve of personal injury lawyers.

Just a thought, is it possible that Ray and Kirk were just goofing around and this whole thing was taken completely out of context? It's either that or these guys have lost their marbles. (I really never have liked their "Way of the Master" stuff.)

Just watched the second video. It has its problems too. I know a bit about physics, and the stuff about our universe likely being the results of a collision between two objects is utter bunk. They may have gotten this from a highly speculative PBS show broadcast a year or so ago. There has been some speculation along these lines, but no self-respecting physicist is going to say it is probable. In fact, the underlying theory behind it (string theory, pretty speculative in the first place, amplified with more speculation about how it might relate to space-time) is coming on hard times these days (though it is not out for the count).

Also, Einstein did not derive his "blunder" from his belief in God. His blunder came because he was uncharacteristically blinded by the "scientific" prejudice of his day that required the universe to be ever existing and stable. It is true, however, that his concept of God was not all that close to ours, or to Ray and Kirk's. Einstein was more of a "god of the philosophers" man.

But I don't know anything about bananas.

Just because humans can purposefully make a short fat banana with seeds into a long skinny banana with very small seeds does not mean that nature randomly made a sea urchin into an elephant (or whatever)

Dachshunds and Irish wolfhounds are both dogs, and have both been bred purposefully to look the way that they look. But breeding for characteristics does not make these breeds of dogs into race horses.

I watched this some time back and all I could think was. . .. What???? Is this an odd joke??? They look serious.

Yeah, I thought this banana argument was simplistic too. This reminds me of a book I'm interested in reading, but prob. won't for a while, Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ, by James W. Sire. Not that the banana example is good, but it is an honest argument.

I don't think they're kidding and I don't think they were trying to impress atheists or theologians. At the fundamental level, I see no problem with their thesis: God made bananas for human consumption.

Perhaps the bit about it being the "atheist's nightmare," or whatever he said, was tongue-and-cheek.

At any rate, it seems that their target audience is youth. I think youth, especially the youngest of the youths, respond to stuff like that. Does that make it bad? I don't think so.

It's somewhere between Veggie Tales and N.T. Wright. ;-)

Bird, I get your point about the target audience. But what about the long-term effects of simplistic arguments like this?

When this is the kind of stuff you get fed in a youth group, and then you go to college, you're not exactly well-equipped.

When this is the kind of stuff you get fed in a youth group, and then you go to college, you're not exactly well-equipped.

Fair enough.

I read this earlier today, before I packed my kids lunches. My eldest son's lunch usually includes a banana.

I tried holding the perfectly yellow three-sided banana in my closed three-sided fist and was disappointed to see they *didn't* correctly line up as Comfort promised.

I packed the banana, anyway.

better arguments for existence of the Triune God are made in "He is There and He is not Silent" by Schaeffer

of course its much more complicated and hard to explain in short to regular joe's.

It occurs to me, if Comfort is right about the banana, oranges must be a tool of the devil.

Bob:

Yeah! What about pomegranates? And tomatoes? And meat, which you have to go and COOK before it becomes edible, thus wasting up to 2 hours of prime munching time? =o)

I have another point to add to Alan's very very good litany of points above, which is that we really shouldn't be looking for "things perfectly adapted to human use" as our criterion for evidence of God, because God made the world primarily for HIS pleasure and glory, and only secondarily for ours. There's stuff that we will never use or see in the world (like beautiful stalactite/mite formations in as yet undiscovered caves, or - if you buy into an old-earth cosmology, as I do - wickedawesomecool dinosaurs) that God still made for his own pleasure.

Ultimately, Alan's is the most worrying point: what will be the long-term effects of simplistic arguments like this for the faith of young people and the atheism of their friends later in life?