Two new episodes of The Non-Prophets are up

Ask and ye shall receive.  11.12 and 11.13 are available as both video and audio, and also up on the podcast.


  1. Jed Deemer says

    Russell, I was in the middle of watching NPR 11.13, and I was so outraged that I had to stop and come here to respond; specifically in re your comments about Dr. Brown, the Congressional candidate from Georgia. Your assertion that he’s just one of those ignorant maroons who meekly accepts the Creationist pablum without question, viz., “He probably heard the word ’embryology’ somewhere”. Did you not notice that in your description of him, you specifically mentioned he was a “Medical Doctor”? Isn’t it more than likely that a man who completed the curriculum necessary to be able to practice medicine have more than a creotard’s familiarity with embryology?

    You did Dr. Brown a disservice, and owe him an apology; he’s not a misinformed dupe, he’s a lying piece of crap who knows better.

    I’ll look forward to your apology, and then hope you tear Dr. Brown a new one for all the right reasons.


  2. Jed Deemer says

    And, while I’m at it (you know, it occurs to me that it probably would have been better to wait till the end of the whole podcast before commenting), the Einstein letter is not a “new” discovery; he was in the habit of keeping a copy of his correspondence for his records. The copy of this letter has been in the Einstein archives at the Hebrew University for 30+ years; what’s new is that the original is available for auction.

    Just being my normal, nitpicky, detail troll.

    Thanks for putting up with me.

  3. invivoMark says

    Yo, any hints about a forthcoming reply to Stephen Feinstein? I saw he wrote a massive (MASSIVE!) final post a month ago, and it’s just begging to be demolished. I haven’t read it (sorry, I’m not going to read a whole book on apologetics in my freetime, especially when it’s not very well written), but the bits and pieces that I skimmed looked awful.

    As much as your reply probably won’t do much good for believers, I was kinda looking forward to it. Should I still be hoping for it, or have you kinda given up on it at this point? I can’t blame you if this is the case.

  4. Kazim says

    Spoiler: have not given up. Although, the awfulness and bad writing you mentioned have been a factor in my slow response time. It’s on the way though, I plan to spend most of tomorrow night getting it to near completion.

  5. Kazim says

    It has been available, but some people don’t like videos. What’s changed is that I uploaded the audio.

  6. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach says

    Yay! I came by to ask the same question, glad to hear a reply is on the way. I did read his final post (well, most of it), and I’m really looking forward to seeing you rip the flimsy mess into tiny pieces.

  7. Tim Wicklund says

    I skimmed the his last reply and the ending is enough to tell me that he’s full of it: “My only suggestion to you is that you repent of your sin and trust the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul. You are a guilty sinner who has broken the holy God’s laws, and as a result you will one day stand before Him in judgment.” BLAH BLAH BLAH

  8. koliedrus says

    I am proud to be in the minority for, verily, I am witness to the existence of Dog.

    Good Puppy.

  9. curtcameron says

    Do you really think that Feinstein is arguing in good faith? To me, it seems like he’s intentionally being deceptive. I have to admit, I skimmed a lot of his final installment, but what I saw was just the same theme: “Ha, you’re using logic, so I win!!!”

    That seems to be the entirety of his argument. I would think the rebuttal would be the simple list of points:

    * We both acknowledge that we have logic to use. Talking about the source of our ability to use logic is beside the point. We know we have it, because it works (biatch!). That’s the point we start from.

    * So what can we deduce from the world we see, using this logic? It’s reasonable to try to use evidence and reason to say that only a God could explain it. However, that view seems to be unsupported by the evidence. We see that the world we live in would allow creatures to survive at a higher rate if they can perceive relatively accurately this world. Maybe even sometimes the best survivors would have certain biases that led them to incorrect perceptions. And wouldn’t you know, that’s what we observe. No god required.

    However, I’m not sure that he’s open to having a real dialogue. He seems to be stuck on his presuppositionalist point, that if you are using logic, he wins. I think everyone should be able to see through this, but these guys are especially hard-headed.

  10. John Kruger says

    Your post goaded me into reading the latest response. Yeesh.

    I don’t think the latest response puts forth anything Russell has not already dealt with, ad nauseum. He is still defining god as a necessary being and begging the question, still using dualism and equivocating existence, and still using a double standard/special pleading on demanding preconditions for everything except for god. He just says he is not doing these things, and then proceeds to repeat what he said last time claiming Russel does not understand. He even has the gall to complain about the response times, which are not too surprising since he is basically repeating his arguments and declaring victory while Russell is actually addressing his arguments.

    I would warm up my word search engine and show exactly where said all the things he denies he said, repetitively pointing out the flaws in his logic is useless at this point. He is just talking past everything now, and the whole conversation has long since rotted on the vine. I will be interested in the wrap up, but will be glad not to read his tedium anymore.

  11. ah58 says

    This bugged me a bit too. After all, this guy’s supposed to be a doctor and one would assume he’s had some exposure to scientific method in general and embryology in particular.

    I do think he’s not necessarily saying all of embryology is wrong. I think he’s tilting at a strawman. He’s under the impression that embryologists think that the embryo goes through stages of development that recapitulate evolution. That’s not true but it’s a common creationist talking point. That is my take on what the guy is saying.

  12. says

    No I don’t think he is. Nor do I think that was ever an intention. Debating from the perspective of the apologist is only really about one thing, prosthelytizing. Its a ploy to take a stage and reaffirm the flock.

  13. Kazim says

    There is an “app” built in to Google Hangouts called “Lower Thirds.” In order to get that to work, you need to install it using the control panel at the top while the hangout is running. We use that to put up titles.