Writer’s Log: Stardate 28-1-12
I have to share this “review of a review” that I found today by accident. PZ Myers is a popular, articulate, bombastic and irreverent science blogger with a loyal following. He is a also a biologist although, as near as I can tell, hasn’t made any real contribution to that field beyond teaching at a university (which is an important contribution, of course.)
Myers is an enthusiastic atheist who thinks everyone who believes in God is out of their mind. He lumps NIH director Francis Collins together with the crazy creationist jailbird Kent Hovind. Like so many of the outspoken atheists he intensely dislikes people like me, who suggest that there is a middle ground between the science-rejecting nonsense of Ken Ham and the sola scientia of Richard Dawkins.
This particular piece was titled “Ken Ham versus Karl Giberson—should I care who wins?”
Here are PZ’s comments on the NY Times review of our book, The Anointed:
What made me laugh was that both the book and the review have infuriated Ken Ham, one of the chief targets of the argument against these evangelical know-nothings. Oh, Ken Ham is spitting mad.
Recently, two AiG staff members reviewed a book entitled The Anointed, co-authored by a writer who is well known for compromising the pagan religion of millions of years and evolution with God’s infallible Word.
If you follow the creationist movement at all, one of the clear messages is that atheists like me might be the imps of Satan, but we’re mostly irrelevant to their concerns. We offer no serious temptations to Real Christians™. No, the real dangers are those heretics who still promise all of the good rewards of Christianity — eternal life, paradise, good buddy Jesus, that sort of thing — yet do so without demanding the rigors and trials of pure Biblical literalism and fundamentalism. They offer an easy route out of their specific sect, and the fear is that they will substantially erode the faithful away.
You can read the rest of it here. It’s quite entertaining.