151. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233794 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #233789 by Teratornis

Get therapy. Seriously - you need it.

152. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233791 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #233784 by Diacanu

Considering his responses (or lack of), I suggest that Teratornis now qualifies as spam.

153. A flea we missed?

Comment #233773 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #233760 by stevencarrwork

I guess Robertson is his own Pope.

If a Christian believes in revelation, they consider themselves to have a super-power - the ability to connect directly with the creator of the universe and know his mind. Everyone is their own pope.

154. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233765 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #233759 by Teratornis

suggests it would be quite silly to expect a motorist to honestly confront the consequences of motoring.

It seems my attempt to engage rationally are a waste of time.

155. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233757 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #233751 by Teratornis

I have an honest suggestion, put forward amicably.

Why not go to blogger.com and put your arguments up on posts there? Then, when you feel it is relevant, you can make a short post here containing a link to your arguments? You would not have to re-type so much, and it might encourage a more constructive debate.

156. A flea we missed?

Comment #233748 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:25 am

Cartomancer-

I shouldn't be at all surprised that Robertson made this attempt to selectively interpret what I said to his own advantage.

My dear fellow, David can read the book of an overt atheist (Paul Davies), who (even in spite of funding by Templeton) has been working for a long time to knock down "super-turtles" (what he calls faith-based external origins for the universe), and interpret this book as making a case for theism.

I really don't know how to interpret this. David Robertson is either rather dim, very ignorant, or very manipulative, or some combination of the three.

I am afraid that my impression is that Robertson would make a good Daily Mail journalist... he has some capability at writing, but not much of an intellect.

157. A flea we missed?

Comment #233743 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #233712 by JAMCAM87

There is no need to apologise to me. We each come to enlightenment about the nature of David Robertson in our own way.

Goodness knows he provides enough evidence!

I am gay, and I know his views on that. I engage him purely to illustrate how poor his arguments are, and not out of any respect or politeness. I know that as I post he views me as somewhat equivalent to a paedophile.

158. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233689 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #233686 by decius

All I can say to those who mistrust "big pharma", and evidence-based medicine on the basis of anecdotes of malpractice, is that they should look at the wider picture, and how the system, far from being perfect, is a self-correcting one.

Well said. That view also is disrespectful of the many thousands of honest researchers who work within drug companies.

159. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233668 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 7:52 am

Bonzai-

But the fact that these stories are nonsense doesn't invalidate the technology.

I think it means that they should be approached with caution. I think it is also a problem when such medical ideas are promoted to people who don't realise that the stories behind them are nonsense.

But what if you understand it as just a vocabulary to summarily describe phenomenological observations?

But most people don't treat it like that. That is a problem.

160. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233651 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 7:08 am

Bonzai-

The billiard ball model is just a visualizing device, in his work he doesn't need to work from first principle.

I don't believe one can talk about therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture being that kind of approximation to reality. They are quite simply wrong in their understanding of nature and what goes on in the body.

161. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233642 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 6:44 am

I don't think it's rational to automatically dismiss all alternative therapies. E.g. many current drugs are refined or synthetic versions of traditional herbal remedies.

There can be real problems - even dangers - with alternative therapies because they are almost always based on incorrect models of the world.

162. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233629 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 6:07 am

Who killed the asteroids?

You can get some very effective cream for those.

163. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233609 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #233604 by Philip1978

If prostitutes can have a patron saint, why not atheists?

164. A flea we missed?

Comment #233506 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 2:10 am

Comment #233492 by David A Robertson

Steve you need to read the Goldilocks Enigma again. I just read over the last couple of chapters last night. He does make a case for theism - and implies he does not accept it. But he makes a fair and in my view a good case. The difference between an intellectual atheist like Davies and an emotional one like RD is that Davies encourages people to think for themselves whereas Dawkins implies that you must accept his opinion or you are a fool.

I think you are misusing the term "make a case". Davies puts forward an explanation only to refute it. What I have a problem with is you taking part of Davies argument, and ignoring the bit that then goes on to explain why theism is not an acceptable option. That suggests you believe you understand the physics better than Davies.

If you are going to accept what Davies says for a hypothetical case for theism, you have to then accept what he says against that case, otherwise you are simply quote-mining.

If I were you, I would leave off quoting anything from Davies for this reason.

Also, I am afraid that criticising Dawkins' attitude does not count as an argument. I am interested in the truth of a statement, not the manner in which it is said.

And I notice you did not answer my question - if Davies is such a convinced atheist why does he endorse Collins book 'the language of God'?

I haven't read Collins' book, so I am not in a position to comment.

Incidentally, If you really want to write something of interest, rather than putting forward arguments which I am afraid have been refuted time and again, over the centuries, I would suggest abandoning your existing book and writing something about why you don't accept Hume's arguments against believing supernatural explanations. I think that is far more devastating against religion even than the discovery of Natural Selection.

165. No credit for creationism

Comment #233472 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #233468 by Bonzai

That is a good point. I would not say that the situation with ideas such as monopoles is quite the same as for ID though; the existence of monopoles is not put forward as something that is true from the start, and has to be accepted until all possible searches have been done. The motivation for ID is clear - we should accept the existence of a designer from the start. Its gap-filling nature means it is something we are supposed to disprove, not prove.

However, you are right about a better argument against ID - it does not advance knowledge. What ID is attempting to do is to stop further investigation by persuading people that irreducibility has been found,

166. No credit for creationism

Comment #233453 by Steve Zara on August 20, 2008 at 12:29 am

Comment #233449 by Jesus86

It predicts that the fingerprints of this intelligent creative force will be found on biological structures in the form of irredicibly complex forms.

This is the thing that isn't falsifiable.

Testable model that makes predictions and has evidence proffered in support.

No. The individual cases of irreducible complexity are refutable, but the core of ID - that one will find the fingerprints of the creative force - is not falsifiable. The ID supporter can simply say "we haven't found the fingerprints yet".

By your own admission, the goalposts are also moving for the Big Bang Theory: some predictions are turning out not to hold, so its back to the drawing board.

Exactly. But there is no "back to the drawing board" for ID. There is only the dismissal of individual examples of supposedly irreducible complexity. No matter how many of these are dismissed, it doesn't get at the core belief of ID, as the core belief is not falsifiable.

This is the logical problem with ID.

Actually, "irreducible complexity" is just as absurd, as it is meaningless. There is no way to know if complexity is irreducible; only that we have not yet found out how it arose.

167. Losing my religion

Comment #233436 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #233435 by Jesus86

I had the opposite impression. TEP is fairly technical science, but I thought his exposition was extraordinary.

I agree. I found The Extended Phenotype a delight to read.

168. No credit for creationism

Comment #233434 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Comment #233236 by Jesus86

You guys seem to think, by contrast, that there is some kind of logical refutation for ID.

There is.

What Dawkins was refuting was the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor. That does not refute ID, as ID is impossible to falsify. What it says is that there are aspects of life that are irreducibly complex. It is forever moving the goalposts. When one aspect is shown to be reducible, it moves on to others. As long as there is anything left to explain about the origin of life and how all biological and biochemical systems have evolved, then there will be "gaps" into which ID will fit. Such gap-filling is logical nonsense. ID being a "theory of the gaps" is as bad as trying to propose a "God of the gaps".

What Dawkins did was to show how ignorant and misleading the proponents of ID are. That is not the same as refuting the "theory" of ID.

169. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #233423 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 11:05 pm

To return to my point: Theoretically, a person could likewise experience inner voices with a peculiar quality that we don't attach to our inner voices, a quality they say is a tinge of the supernatural. I can't disprove that, and I don't think you can, either - unless you are a better metaphysician than Kant.

This doesn't prove anything. All it is subjective evidence for is the feeling of a quality that someone considers supernatural. It does not mean it really is supernatural.

I do find it odd that some religions consider that we are flawed beings, yet we paradoxically have some perfect ability to recognise the divine nature of some of our internal experiences.

We aren't experts on our own brains, or minds. We can experience illusions. No-one is in any position to state that an experience, even a perfectly clear voice in one's head, is supernatural.

The only way to maintain a consistent science / religion compatibility is to give up on the notion that religious "knowledge" can be transmitted between the subjective minds that "experience" it.

This kind of knowledge is meaningless. There is no consistent science / religion compatibility.

170. A flea we missed?

Comment #233232 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I think there is a simple question that needs to be asked of David Robertson.

In his 2005 article he talks about physical death, physical cancer, and physical cancer being a result of the Fall. Now he wishes to correct that view and talk purely about the spiritual. Is he prepared to publish a correction to his original article?

If not, why not?

The original article was strongly supportive of creationist views. What he has posted here is supportive (largely) of evolution.

I think we need some honesty from David.

171. A flea we missed?

Comment #233190 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #233184 by Quetzalcoatl

As posted months ago, I thought it might be worth him writing a slim volume with the following title:

"A Religious Treatise on Finance: Cheques and Balances"

172. A flea we missed?

Comment #233169 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #233147 by Cartomancer

I don't know. David seems to be very good at dividing...

173. A flea we missed?

Comment #233075 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #233071 by Roland_F

You could be right, but there is still no doubt that Davies dismissed God as a reasonable possibility, no matter what Robertson says.

174. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #233072 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 5:08 am

Comment #233070 by Tyler Durden

Sure, but it is almost certainly not going to cause us any problems. Galactic collisons can destroy galaxies, but have little effect on most stars and their solar systems.

175. A flea we missed?

Comment #233034 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 3:35 am

Comment #233030 by Philip1978

It does make me wonder why people like Robertson are so scared of themselves. They seem to think that without God to watch them, they would get up to all kinds of things.

176. A flea we missed?

Comment #233032 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #233027 by AllanW

I agree. We are considered to have no morals, and some of us have lifestyles that are equivalent to paedophilia.

I refuse to be fluffy and cuddly with anyone who believes that. That would be going from basic good manners to masochism.

177. A flea we missed?

Comment #233020 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 3:06 am

Bonzai-

But I have to say Davies does seem to use his words in such a way to invite misquoting by people like Robertson

I agree. As you say, one can't help but wonder about his motivation.

178. A flea we missed?

Comment #233011 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 2:58 am

I would not like to accuse you of deliberate misrepresentation but what I actually wrote was "Whilst Paul Davies is not a theist I have found him to be very fair and he does not dismiss theism - indeed he puts forward an excellent case for it". That is somewhat different from what you said

I am afraid I don't see the difference, and this is a misrepresentation of Davies.

The book "The Goldilocks Enigma" does not contain a case for theism. Theism (along with other explanations) is clearly dismissed.

The whole point of the book is to suggest that an explanation for the apparent design of the universe has to come from within the universe and not from some outside influence.

If you don't realise that, you have not only misunderstood that book, but the major theme of Davies' work for some time.

Whereas Dawkins and some of the people here are emotional atheists and cannot be fair because they just react and emote all the time.

Shame on you for saying this. Dawkins arrived at atheism for intellectual reasons - the power of Natural Selection, and has put forward perhaps the clearest intellectual argument for atheism of recent years - the "Ultimate 747".

I find Davies' approach unappealing. The truth should be argued for with passion, not some mealy-mouthed compromise with superstition.

179. A flea we missed?

Comment #233002 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 2:45 am

"Yes - that is the definition in the atheist dictionary - according to RD. But it is not the position that Christians hold."

I am going to be a little bit controversial, and actually agree with David Robertson about something.

Please forgive me; I'll try and explain.

I don't believe that most religious people have much faith at all. They really believe that there is evidence for God and the supernatural. They think that the wonder and "beauty" of the world suggests a loving designer.

But that is because few religious people are educated in science and philosophy, and so they don't understand the profound problems involved in their positions.

The ones who really do need faith are the theologians, those who have studied these matters. I recommend this wonderful discussion between Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner as an illustration:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTAagcaFN0

There are also some scientists who are well educated in these matters and who also require faith. An example is Ken Miller who apparently requires a God to act via quantum mechanics (something for which there is not the slightest evidence).

If the majority of religious people really were forced to rely on faith, religion would, I think, die out very quickly.

180. A flea we missed?

Comment #232989 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 1:56 am

We'll see, the macroevolution attack came after he said he supported evolution.

Ah. Not so hopeful then.

But if he is coming here and pandering to evilutionists, what is he after?

181. A flea we missed?

Comment #232982 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 1:46 am

Yeah, but he also came on the site once rather ignorantly trying to diss macroevolution because he had been listening to some fundie. Then he said he doesn't know enough about evolution, then there is the fall - WTF??????

I get a vague impression that we may be moving towards full support for evolution. At least for now :)

182. A flea we missed?

Comment #232958 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 1:18 am

Comment #232957 by isthatclear

heads: Dna was created by God

How?

183. A flea we missed?

Comment #232954 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 1:09 am

Robertson wrote-

Steve - thanks. These are good and vital points. I believe certain things that you may regard (as would Ken Ham) as obviously contradictory. There was physical death before the fall (including animal). After the fall spiritual death came in. The key question is then - to what extent did that affect 'nature' and physical death. I think that there was a profound change. The natural order has been infected and poisoned. Actually there are many Christians (such as Francis Collins and Denis Alexander whose latest book, Creation or Evolution- do we have to choose? is just out) who would argue for both evolution and a fall.

I am not sure I am happy with a comparison with Ken Ham. Not to believe in a fall is not fundamentalist, as I see no evidence for one. I also am not trying to contradict clear evidence for evolution (as Ham does). I am not trying to corrupt the education of children by wrecking science. (I am quite content for them to have religious education in religion classes - not that my view matters at all)

I hope you can now see the problem with that article on the Tsunami. You did not point out the contradictions. You did not mention "spiritual death", or "spiritual disaster" or "spiritual cancer". I hope you can see how this appears to be worryingly pandering to creationists.

I believe that creationism is a deeply worrying problem with religion. I have come across it increasingly via friends who are teachers and lecturers. There are a not insignificant number of people who wish to abandon areas of science even at degree level in the UK. I don't believe we want, for example, medical students who are profoundly ignorant of perhaps the key idea in biology. If you are prepared to denounce creationism clearly, then I would have to admit that I have, at least to some degree, misjudged you.

Steve - so would I. Do you know? And do you know why cancer is apparently much more a Western disease? I would genuinely be interested in the answers to these questions.

Many cancers seem to be due to viruses. I am not an expert, but I suspect they have been around for a very long time. They occur very frequently in nature (there is currently an epidemic of facial cancers in Tasmanian Devils, which threatens the species with extinction).

As for cancer being apparently more a Western disease, that is probably an illusion because we are living longer, and don't die earlier of alternate causes.

184. A flea we missed?

Comment #232936 by Steve Zara on August 19, 2008 at 12:24 am

I do think I contribute a lot of off topic stuff that could probably be held back for my blog or something.

*ingratiatingly* (as is apparently my style) I don't think the issue is being off topic. It seems to me it is about not being dull or pointlessly offensive. I don't remember you having been either :)

185. A flea we missed?

Comment #232777 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #232769 by decius

A tiny minority of self-conceited visitors unfamiliar with the ways of internet may indeed leave on account of colourful language. So what?

There is all the difference between colourful language and just being provocative for the sake of it.

I don't know what your experience is, but I find it quite amusing to see the same discussions about the protocols and manners of posting going on now as I saw on usenet in the early 90s!

186. A flea we missed?

Comment #232760 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm

To be fair, the poster who made that comparison has a habit of ingratiating himself with the more articulate posters by complimenting them willy nilly.

Don't make yourself look even more of an idiot than you already are. If you had actually bothered to follow this site, you would know that I don't ingratiate myself with anyone. I have critised everyone even up to Dawkins.

Yet another post marked as troll...

187. A flea we missed?

Comment #232748 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm

To compare Diacanu with Plath is ridiculous. Plath was a genius. Diacanu's "poetry" is nothing more than a string of expletives. It's more like rap music than poetry.

It isn't ridiculous. I am not saying that all Diacanu's writings equal those of Plath. That would be absurd. But there can be a similarity of style; an impression. You are seriously wrong if you say that what Diacanu writes is "nothing more than a string of expletives".

A poet is someone who can conjure up an image and a feeling with precision in a few words. They can attack an idea with a carefully selected metaphor in just a sentence. I think that describes Diacanu.

Sharon says expresses this perfectly:

One of the things about someone like Diacanu or Cartomancer (among others) is that each post by them is a well-crafted piece that is new and fresh and fantastic each and every time.

I will be honest. It took me a while to realise the quality of Diacanu's writings, but now I look forward to them with great pleasure.

Also, rap can be excellent poetry.

I refer mostly to the treatment of David Robertson. If you can't be polite even to people who are indoctrinated (and therefore deserve our sympathy) then there is no hope for the atheist cause.

Have you read nothing in the past few days about what Robertson has posted and his tactics? About his lies and distortions? About his comparing homosexuality and paedophilia?

You may wish to pander to him. I refuse to.

188. A flea we missed?

Comment #232704 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #232697 by Quetzalcoatl

I am in no position to criticise general banter, as I was once caught in mid-thread by Dawkins discussing the relative merits of different characters in Buffy.

I guess what I am trying to say is that even discussing Buffy ranks considerably above recent discussions which have consisted of little more than [whack] (TWP) and genital warts (and far worse) (kkelly).

That's all I'm sayin'.

189. A flea we missed?

Comment #232694 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #232690 by AllanW

I agree. The styles are clearly related. But I am more of a Plath fan :)

The point I am trying to make is that I really do think Diacanu is a poet (I especially think this after having read some wonderful blog posts from him). He doesn't casually mock. He chooses words with precision.

190. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #232693 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #232016 by spiderdancer

But if you say there is no sense in which we can escape our genes it sounds to me like you are taking up a position of genetic determinism.

I really am not. I think we have a huge amount of freedom, but that this freedom is what we are given by genes, as genes have given us our big brains and minds.

All I am trying to say is that we can't escape the influence of genes, as we are nothing but the product of genes. We can't escape selection, as whatever happens to us, that will select genes. But, genes don't control us.

191. A flea we missed?

Comment #232686 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #232674 by Hellene

I vote to hand the cricket bat to Steve.

I refuse it. I say it goes to Diacanu, who has a style and poetry and passion it has taken me a long while to figure out what it reminded me of. Many may disagree, but the spiky poetry of Diacanu at his best reminds me of Sylvia Plath. I feel lucky I know so many people here who are so lucid and knowledgeable and eloquent.

192. A flea we missed?

Comment #232660 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #232655 by JAMCAM87

There is all the difference between the interactions of those who are regulars on a site, and those who post only to provoke, such as Robertson.

193. A flea we missed?

Comment #232631 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #232625 by kkelly

Steve, I have stopped being explicitly offensive

Very well done! I am so glad you have done that. It really isn't a good idea to go around being explicitly offensive, otherwise people might actually find you offensive.

I do wonder what it was about Richard Dawkins, a thoroughly decent fellow, that made you feel that you should come to his site and be explicitly offensive?

194. A flea we missed?

Comment #232626 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm

However it is an odd dichotomy to insist this site must be purely intellectual discourse, or pure nonsense which some may find humorous. Can't it be a bit of both?

It can be a bit of both, but in the humour, I look for intellect, and in the intellect, I look for humour. There are those here who combine both wonderfully - Shane Dark and Diacanu, for example.

For me, the main thing is for posters to realise that this is the site of Richard Dawkins. It isn't the site of Adam Sandler, or of Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. This is supposed to be a site of clear thinking and intellect.

195. A flea we missed?

Comment #232616 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

I have to say, I agree with Diacanu.

Some people (and I will name them) seem to have forgotten that this is the website of one of the most eloquent and literate scientists of the past century. I think we have to question whether or not the standard of debate and discussion established by Richard Dawkins is being maintained or appreciated.

I think it isn't. That may well be the consequence of an open and largely unmoderated forum, but I would be saddened if this really were the case.

There have been those who have posted here with amazing knowledge and intellect, who have surely educated me, and many others.

But, recently, there have been posts that have not matched that level of wit, or intellect; who have not even respected that quality. Kkelly has been explicitly offensive. TWP has just posted a load of "whacks", without, to be honest, much to back that up.

Do we really want this site to reduce that level? It has been a place of inspiring discussions; a place where some of us have been educated - where minds have been changed. We can either work to keep this site like that, or we can have Richard Dawkins' place of discussion decend to the same level as any other general chat site on the internet.

My view is that we stop pandering to those who just want to rant or joke here. We say that you need to post with imagination or intelligence, or just shut up.

196. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232587 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #232577 by Elli

I too really love reading Dennett, and listening to him. However, there are others I find just a bit better at getting to the point of an argument and explaining it. In the area that Dennett deals with, I can thoroughly recommend the writings of Paul Churchland.

197. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232570 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #232563 by kkelly

Actually, I think it is enough people reacting to that infection and marking it as troll.

You have a clever tactic. Intersperse enough trolling nonsense with occasional lucidity to make people confused about your intentions.

I have no hesitation in marking your posts as trolling from now on.

198. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232562 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #232560 by kkelly

Is there a way to protect against irritating infections of websites?

199. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232534 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #232524 by Fanusi Khiyal

Are you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated?

Piffle. I have a local NHS surgery that is wonderful. My late father was treated with great skill and compassion in his last days.

You are just talking out of your bottom, I am afraid.

200. A flea we missed?

Comment #232510 by Steve Zara on August 18, 2008 at 8:34 am

Comment #232470 by Oystein Elgaroy

Robertson has indeed strayed into cosmology.

In his "Dawkins Letters" he refers to Paul Davies' book "The Goldilocks Enigma" as making a case for theism, even though Davies is an atheist, and the book (I don't know if you are familiar with it) makes the same kind of arguments that The God Delusion does about "ultimate 747s", and Davies says that "... the concept of "God" runs into a logical and existential quagmire".

What Robertson is saying is that he knows better than Paul Davies what the conclusion of his book should be. Neat, isn't it?

Robertson is the kind of person who could read The Origin of Species and come to the conclusion that it made an excellent case for creationism because life is so complex.