May 8, 2009

Anyone Care to Defend the ICR?

Posted in Creationism tagged , , , at 1:22 pm by Andrew

I don’t see how any honest Christian can read this mendacious quotemine and not come away with the conclusion that ICR “Staff Science Writer” Brian Thomas either:

a) is not aware that a planet can accumulate a ring system after its formation; or

b) is deliberately lying.

Ordinarily, my vote would be for (b), but considering how stupid their staff lawyer is (let alone their Guy In Charge of Making Stuff Go Down the Memory Hole), I can’t rule out (a).

What I can rule out, however, is any chance these guys give one whit about actual science.

Chris Matthews Goes 1-for-2

Posted in Atheism, Debates tagged , , , at 1:05 pm by Andrew

After nailing Mike Pence for waffling about evolution a few days ago, Chris Matthews falls down on the job in confronting actual creationist Tom Tancredo.

If you’re in a good mood and can stomach creationist nonsense being delivered without question, click through for the video and transcript. This is why I called Matthews’ interview with Pence “his usual Hardball schtick” the other day; it isn’t that Matthews is a friend of good science, it’s that the relishes in trapping politicians in uncomfortable situations. For the Tancredos of the world — unabashed moron creationists — there’s no smoking gun, and Matthews loses interest.

HT: Hemant Mehta.

More on Francis Collins: “Mumbo Jumbo”

Posted in Atheism, Creationism tagged , , , , , at 12:55 pm by Andrew

In New Scientist, Andy Coghlan says that Collins’ BioLogos website (which I previously discussed here) “strays into the realms of mumbo-jumbo” in presenting quantum arguments for the existence of God:

But the idea that God can undetectably intervene when he wants to is having your cake and eating it. It disappoints me that such a gifted scientist could make this argument.

The entire (short) article is worth a read.

Taibbi on Fish on Eagleton

Posted in Atheism, Worldview tagged , , , , at 12:48 pm by Andrew

If you’ve already read my take on the ultimate implications of Terry Eagleton’s work, and you’ve migrated on to PZ’s take, then you’re probably ready to check out Matt Taibbi’s.

Money quote:

Like almost all great defenders of religion, Eagleton specializes in putting bunches of words together in ways that sound like linear arguments, but actually make no sense whatsoever. In one speech he takes issue with what he calls the “Yeti” view of faith as espoused by atheists, i.e. the idea that religion is based upon the belief in an object whose existence, like that of the Yeti or the Tooth Fairy, cannot be verified by observation “in the reasonably straightforward way that we can demonstrate the existence of necrophilia or Michael Jackson” (one of a disturbingly high number of Eagleton jokes that nonsensically reference pop culture figures of at best semi-recent vintage).