In which we learn something more about the nature of gods

They’re liars. Kent Hovind attempts to explain the contradictions in the Bible, and it’s easy. The Bible is a trap. God intentionally put in errors so he can catch the people smart enough to notice them, and drive them away from the faith. Because, apparently, he only wants irrational people to believe in him.

If I was god…I would write the book in such way that those who don’t want to believe in me any way would think they found something — “a-ha, here’s why I don’t believe” — and then they could go on with their own life, because they don’t want to believe in god any way.
…
I would put things in there that appear, without digging, to be contradictions. I don’t think that’s deceptive, that’s really wise for our heavenly father to weed out those who are really serious.

I know this is difficult for an ethically-challenged person like Hovind, but that actually is deceptive.

Why, yes, I have strong opinions on this matter, but demanding I do something about it will accomplish nothing

I have been told that I must deal with a “misogynistic” statement expressed on Freethoughtblogs by Lux Pickel. They said, “Centering our pro-abortion rhetoric around women is inherently erasing of the existence and needs of trans individuals.“

I have two points to make here.

[Read more…]

Another day, another creationist

My conversation with Perry Marshall about “evolution 2.0” is now online on the radio show Unbelievable.

Marshall is sales and marketing guy who has written a book titled Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design, in which he claims to have worked out a reconciliation between science and religion based on arguments he had with his missionary/theologian brother, that hints at the quality of the science you’ll find in it. He has a superficial view of a few biological processes, like DNA error repair and transposition, and has shoehorned them into his religious belief that these are the tools used by some kind of engineering force that makes them purposeful.

He has a challenge with a $100,000 prize. All you have to do is show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. Basically he’s making the clueless argument that there are no processes in genetics that produce novel information. I think Jeffrey Shallit ought to step up and claim it. Actually, he might have to fight through a mob of information theorists to get his money (if it exists, and if the judging wasn’t rigged).