1. Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

Comment #151329 by rcphelan on March 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Sarah95, I see we were in the same grammar school together. I can remember him bellowing, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat."

Actually, I think he looks more like Uncle Fester.

2. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115445 by rcphelan on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

"there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot that makes each of them sacred and of infinite worth."

I guess a bit of a different take on the oft mentioned (around here at least) gruesome threesome.

I wonder where the pastoral minister was when Clinton was engaged in the mystical process leading to the bombing of that pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan?

This really is such a silly article. Most cultures find ways to denigrate any foreign culture, using race as a way to connect the dots. Darwin's discovery should end racism, recognizing that even "races" are a product of selection to prefer the survival of us humans. Would Winston Churchill's particular genetic code be suited to working on a Chinese rice farm? Hunting antelope on the savanna?

3. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85811 by rcphelan on November 7, 2007 at 8:50 am

steve99 (#85793)

And Terry Eagleton is a well respected left-wing writer. It doesn't mean that his criticism of Dawkins is true.

Chomsky has probably over 2 million words in print, so discovering his thoughts from the source is always preferable to critics. Just because someone is a liberal does not, of course, mean they agree in all things. Chomsky has many lefty enemies who rail against him because of his stance on Israel. There is probably no one more accessible to find out what he actually believes than Chomsky, given the number of interviews he gives. He is rarely, if ever, inconsistent. His "support" for the Pol Pots of the world are always, always, a reference to his futile attempts to get the world to focus on other crimes from other states and attempting to put atrocities in perspective, not to excuse atrocities. Criticizing the US or Israel for official actions in no way should imply a love for their enemies. I agree he can take the love of the underdog a little far, but I don't see how anyone can seriously doubt the underlying morality, or his belief in an underlying moral instinct he champions against those who would subvert that instinct for various economic or political purposes.

4. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85289 by rcphelan on November 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm

No, D'Souza is actually brilliant, jumping in to be the most likely one to make money from attacking "the new atheists" (who is not sick to death of that term already?), given his obvious ties to a great publishing agent.

In the Hitchens debate he disdainfully rejected Dawkins with the usual scientists-should-not- comment-on-history reprimand. Then he, incredibly, goes on to use David Hume as his best example that God must exist because nothing about the future can be assumed from past experience, therefore the (possible) existence of miracles must always be conceded, and, with it, the great flaw in the scientific method is exposed. I am sure Hitchens realized he was stuck with a real loony here and just wanted to get away as soon as possible.

Reading D'Souza I cannot assume that my head will necessarily soon explode, but.....BOOM.

5. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68543 by rcphelan on September 7, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Surely we will find at least one of these many commentators of TGD that have actually read the book....someday. My fear is that they have all read it, but cannot understand it, much the way a partisan football crowd can see, but not accept, a foul committed against their beloved. They come by their considerable mendacity honestly.

These "critics" reviewing any of these recent books must surely see that the reason anyone bothers with attacking the absurdities of religion at all is squarely because many (probably most) believers are determined to spread their particular theological world view to others, with often disastrous consequences. Otherwise there would be no reason to bother writing TGD at all and Prof. Dawkins could continue his astounding career of enlightening and astonishing us in a variety of areas, uninterrupted. I personally know no atheists who give a damn about spreading that world view...they just prefer the planet to be what it actually is, in all its many splendors, not what someone wishes it to be. And, oh, they don't want to get blown up in the bargain.

6. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23542 by rcphelan on March 1, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I don't agree that energy is wasted in reading this, it is the emotional roller coaster of delight at the high humor of it, only to come crashing down in despair with the thought of all those poor philospohy students being taught by the Plantingas of the world. He certainly should know a sophomoric argument well enough. It reminds me of the following logic:

God is an atheist (as to his creator).
I am an atheist.
Therefore, I am like God.

7. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!

Comment #22193 by rcphelan on February 13, 2007 at 7:58 am

Satire this rich could only come from a "higher being", to add to comment #4. Note the following from above, "At the same time, atheists like Dawkins (who continually have Channel 4 and the BBC at their disposal to influence millions of viewers)...

Now from Ham's website bio:

"Ken is heard daily on the radio feature Answers … with Ken Ham (broadcast on more than 850 stations—and over 300 outlets—worldwide), and is a frequent guest on national TV talk-show programs. He has appeared on CBS News Sunday Morning, The NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, and The PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

I think Ham is "aving a laugh" with us.