Discuss amongst yourselves

Like Charles Martel

The Washington Post and the Boston Globe were two of the 25 brave newspapers that weren’t afraid to publish Berke Breathed’s mild cartoonish tweaking of Christianity.

I find these brave warriors of secularism to be truly inspiring, don’t you?

Savaged by angry lambs

Sometimes I suspect PZ is secretly attempting to make my case about the fundamentally careless and unscientific nature of evolutionary biology for me. In the process of trying to deny the obvious connection between the National Socialist eugenics program and his hero Darwin, Dr. PZ Myers links to John Wilkins, who he says “eviscerated” the premises of a program called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.

There’s just one little problem. Wilkins declares that there’s FOUR ways which one could reasonably draw a connection between Darwin and Hitler and then proceeds to address precisely THREE of them over the course of three posts.

Wilkins promises to get around to the last one – not that his argument relating to the eugenics thesis was the least bit convincing or even particularly relevant – but instead concludes by announcing that the research he needed in order to address his “cotraveller thesis” disappeared somehow. So, he doesn’t even try to address what he declares requires addressing.

Some evisceration.


I suppose it’s a fair objection, I’m just surprised it’s necessary:

I guess we all need a definition of “leading light”, don’t we.

Leading Light: “an important or influential person”.

Therefore, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are clearly leading lights of atheism. Warren Buffett, although an atheist, is not; he is not cited once in any New Atheist book. Albert Einstein is not, as he was an agnostic.

As for Daniel Dennett, no, I don’t think he’s an idiot at all. I not only favorably commented on Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, but I even dropped him from the Unholy Trinity, as some have noticed on the book cover. (There is still a chapter devoted to him, of course.) As those who have read all of the New Atheist tomes know, Breaking the Spell is very, very different in both tone and substance than Dawkins’s, Hitchens’s and Harris’s books, which are about as similar as they can be given Harris’s intellectual handicaps and Hitchens’s educational and occupational shortcomings.