The host actually conducted the interview really well - he let Hitch talk, only occasionally interjecting to steer him on to something new.

Excellent entertainment :-)

I was going to post a comment here, but then I thought that a review of a review of a review was just one stage of "meta" too far!

I had a good idea, after thinking about this documentary for a few days:

Conor Cunningham suggests that it has always been Christian doctrine that Genesis was a metaphor, and it was only recently that it has started to be read literally.

The reason for his assertion? It was noticed early on that the biblical account of creation was not consistent. Even within Genesis itself, there were contradictions. Therefore, it _must_ be read metaphorically.

Where am I going with this?

Why don't we take the King James Bible, and the well published list of biblical contradictions and apply The Cunningham Principle (as it shall be called henceforth) ad nauseum? Anything that is contradictory must be read as a metaphor, not literal truth. I wonder what we have left "true" at the end of this process?

Jesus born of a virgin?
Is he resurrected?
Is he the son of God?
What about Moses and the 10 Commandments?
...the list goes on, and on.

My guess is that there is not much of Christianity left, other than one great, big, unholy METAPHOR!!

Bravo MatthewL.

I feel a little bit sorry for Michael Reiss. My interpretation of his comments was that he was NOT advocating the teaching of creationism in the science class, NOT giving equal time to it and evolution. This misconception was created by the media.

I've been watching Richard Dawkins's "Growing Up In The Universe" Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1991 IIRC). They are at great pains to mention (some might say TEACH) creationism. As we would expect, that does not mean that Richard in any way ADVOCATES creationism. In fact, exactly the opposite; it is a wonderful illumination of the scientific argument AGAINST creationism.

My impression was that Reiss was advocating just this approach which, in my view, is perfect for the classroom.

So many people are on here with comments along the lines of "what's to debate" about creationism, "how can anyone be so stupid as to believe that nonsense".

We are grown adults who have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time researching and studying science (popular science) and the problems with a religious worldview. It's easy to forget that many, children specifically, have not been exposed to that. Where else than the science class to discuss the debunking of creationism?

Ed and Pat: The crack atheist tag team :-)

Quality!

THIS IS ALL RUBBISH!

And definitely not proof for the existence of God, cos I was praying for prices to go up. Did he answer my prayers, no he didn't!

;-)

Will post 54 ever get read?!

It seems to me that there is a lot of physics/chemisty/biology/psychology being leapt over in applying predictions about fundamental particles to "free will" (or vice versa)!

Even without delving beyond "physics" in the list above, it strikes me that "quantum" randomness is not the only one that might need considered. Even in certain "classical" systems (ones not taking quantum effects into account), Poincare showed that determinism can be a short-lived phenomenon.

So, the complexity arises because of nonlinear interactions of vast numbers of particles, not "within" the particles themselves. The Butterfly Effect, and all that.

How blinkered the view of Deborah Orr's is!

Yet he never stops himself to wonder why....

Doesn't she realise that there is very little about this topic that Richard has not "stopped himself to wonder about"?!

When journalists come up with innane arguments like she does, do they really think that they are so smart, that noone has come up with them before, and that noone else might have made a counter-argument?

Poor.

....and for their next trick they go on to show an inverse correlation between television ownership and HIV/AIDS infection.....and propose a "Televisions for Africa" charity campaign!

This is the same Catholic Church that made the "scientific" claim that while condoms were good for birth control, they were useless for protecting against HIV.

The reason? The HIV virus is small, so it can get through the holes in the rubber while the larger sperm can't! No doubt a large percentage of those Africans told this might believe it too :-(

An experiment to try: fill a condom with water. Does it escape through the "holes" in the rubber? Is the water molecule smaller or larger than sperm?

I like the "passive genocide" phrase used above!

Anyone who describes the work of Daniel Dennett as "staggeringly unscholarly" obviously hasn't read a word of it!

It's so scholarly sometimes, it's painful :-)

Slightly off topic.....

(btw the videos *are* amazing!!)

Did anyone have trouble playing the MOV files?
Couldn't get Quicktime player to play them. Not really an expert on these things but they seem to be using the MOV file as a container for WMV3-encoded data. This seems a bit non-standard.

The versions from the BBC website were fine :-)

Evolution is a THEORY. Yeah, just like gravity!

That would be catchy enough for a supplementary sticker?

phasmagigas wrote:

so maybe we'll hear some islamic prayers in texan schools, that will go down well.

Never mind Islamic prayers, it seems to me that it would be a valid use of a "limited public forum" to eulogise the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his wondrous noodly appendages :-)

That'll show them!

chauvinj wrote:

"RELIGION -- Joshua is learning to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior more and more every day."

This was Grade 1. I was five going on six....

Disgusting.

You went to a faith-based school. My daughter, who goes to a standard, non-denominational, state-funded school here in the UK came back with a report card from Primary 1 (five years old):

Religous and moral education: ..... has learned that the Bible is a special book.

Yeah, a special book in the same way as Star Wars is a "special" film :-)

PrimeNumbers wrote:

He doesn't look too bright, does he? Is he really arrogant enough to think he has "the answers"?

Interestingly though, he seems to be quite careful to not offer any answers. Only that after the presentations:

You'll have some of the tools necessary for exploring ..... on your own.

Funny how he makes it sound like he's asking the flock to be rational :-)