1. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158272 by ryanjevansuk on April 10, 2008 at 9:19 am

Bravo PZ. The impossibly crass logic which allows these people to land this charge at Darwin's door needs to be throughly debunked once and for all.

Also, painful as it might be, I really want to watch Expelled to see if it is as bad as the reviews I have read suggest but I certainly don't want to pay to see it. Anyone know when it'll be available online...?

2. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20579 by ryanjevansuk on February 4, 2007 at 2:19 pm

I quite agree with the above, Islam terrifies me.

And also liberalism cannot just be about accommodating the belief systems of others even if those beliefs are in direct opposition to our own. Liberalism has to stand up for what it believes in with passion and conviction.

3. 'Hobbit' human 'is a new species'

Comment #19853 by ryanjevansuk on January 30, 2007 at 9:49 am

Incredible! I was sceptical about this back in '04 and thought it might well be hype but this new analysis is a stunning corroboration of the original claims. To think that Floresiensis was thriving long after Neanderthals had disappeared and were it not for the volcanic eruption that devastated their habitat who knows how long they would have survived? Another spine tingling moment for Science!

Yes I'm worried about global warming and the environment and terrorism and global poverty but anyone who would wish to be alive at any other time in history is foolish. Right here, right now is the place to be and it's moments like this that remind us of that privilege.

4. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15060 by ryanjevansuk on December 28, 2006 at 3:39 pm

Can anyone else believe that the Times printed these two pieces on the same page without any countervailing view? Whatever happened to journalisitic integrity? Does anyone know anything about the editor and what kind of agenda he might have? I haven't read anything so ridiculous as the second piece since Rod Liddle's exercise in banality a few weeks ago. What the hell has Richard's attitude or character got to do with the veracity of his arguments?

5. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13708 by ryanjevansuk on December 19, 2006 at 6:50 am

"The true scientific position is that there may be a God and there may not be a God. Why can't we just leave it at that?"

Could Rod Liddle's final comments be any more inane? Should we not be trying to answer that question Rod? No of course not, best just to leave it there and forget about cogent arguments, evidence for and against, probability etc etc.

And is he actually suggesting that he knows more about the "true scientific method" than Dawkins, Singer et al? Please!!

And if I hear one more crass analogy about how science is becoming a "religion" I am going to scream! How hollow does this have to ring before you hear it Rod? This shallow piece of fence-sitting really annoyed me. To compare the fundamentalism of a religious believer with the passionately held and evidence based claims of a scientist is intellectual dishonesty of a repellant kind. Another opportunity for interesting discourse wasted.

6. Day 1: Is God Still Necessary?

Comment #13593 by ryanjevansuk on December 18, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Any chance that someone could post tonight's programme (or at least an excerpt thereof) on this site as I missed it and was very keen to watch Liddle's feeble arguments again? After reading the interview with Richard and being genuinely angered by it (I counted three personal jibes in the first paragraph which instantly negated it in my mind as an even-handed piece of journalism) I could not wait to see the rehash of tired old arguments about how scepticism is not the way and how the greatest crimes in history have been committed by atheists both of which to my mind have been debunked long ago.