Worse than Bush?

I read today that American presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is on record as saying the following in an interview given recently,

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

WTF! - This is idiocy (or lies) layered on top of stupidity wrapped up in arrogance with a bow on top!; lets look at this statement more closely. Firstly, what he's saying is that God doesn't change, i.e. 21st century Christians are no different from 1st century Christians, well, perhaps round his neck of the woods they still stone women to death for being suspected of adultery but not here old boy! Secondly he seems to be suggesting that because science is constantly making new discoveries and better explaining reality that somehow that is not as good as something conceived in a primative Bronze age desert society, all I can suggest is that all the hard working scientists in the USA remind Mr Huckabee when (in his twilight years) he pitches up for his hip replacement or some new drug therapy that the "science" he will need will almost certainly be "new" science" and that perhaps he'd be better off asking his "God" for a prescription instead.

Hypocrite just doesn't seem to cover it; please Americans, for all the world's sake, don't vote for this buffoon.

Islamic fundamentalism - It's all Dawkins' fault

I was amazed to hear on the Radio 4 program "Start of the Week" this week, published author and theologian Karen Armstrong accuse Richard Dawkins (et al) of causing previously reasonable and rational Islamic fundamentalists to suddenly start believing in a "literal" account of creation. Apparently no one believed all that nonsense until Dawkins pointed out what it "actually" says in these holy books is scientifically absurd, for instance that the entire universe was created just slightly after the domestication of the dog.

Apparently this simple pointing out of some basic scientific facts has contributed to Muslims all over the world suddenly seeing the light and fleeing back to the perfectly reasonable position that a mythical superhuman created everything in 6 days a few thousand years ago. I don't know which Islamic countries Ms Armstrong has visited to research this theory but I'd wager that most Muslims in most Islamic states I have ever been to would never have heard of Richard Dawkins, let alone explain why genes are selfish.

What on earth is this idiot spouting on about, are the theologians running scared, what next, new antibiotic causes millions of Christians to reach for the leach jar?

It is interesting to note that Dawkins has just launched a fresh assault on "Theology" as a subject, his opinion is that it is not fit to be taught at Oxford (and presumably any university) because it has yet to prove that it has any real "content". If this woman is a product of that learning process then I can fully see his point!