Thunderf00t has uploaded the entire discussion, uncut from start to finish, and if you have a spare 90 or so minutes, I advise you watch it all! Ray Comfort’s points are torn apart in front of him one by one, as Thunderf00t explores the deeper meaning of Ray’s arguments (evidently not done by Ray himself) such as the “how do you know it is creation?” rebuttal to any claim of the kind “creation needs a creator” in reference to the universe itself.

Here is the entire debate as a YouTube playlist, so sit back and watch the Bananaman get defeated by common sense and logic, as played by Thunderf00t.

Enjoy!

Possibly Related Posts:

• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort -- Ray’s “Apology”
• Ray Comfort is a Coward
• YouTube Thursday -- Thunderf00t, Jesse Ventura, & Steven Fry
• Children of Evolution
• Kent Hovind Wins Golden Crocoduck Award

Anyway, here are the top 5 best captions as selected by me:

5.

Losing… Grip… On reality!

- Bruce

4.

Just a theory, GRAVITY is just a THEORY!

- Edward

3.

*David Attenborough voice* And here we see the creationist in its natural environment, between a rock and a hard place. We can tell it is of the young earth breed due to the way it reaches, grasping for straws but only clasps thin air…

- BastardSheep

2.

All right, PZ, you win! I will give you that damn iPod Touch!

- James Tracy

1.

Things went from bad to worse when, as the bright light at the end of the tunnel cleared, Eric Hovind saw glorious Valhalla in all its splendor.

- Janus Graydon

So congratulations to Janus Graydon of extheist.net, you have won the first Creationism Caption Competition! Without further ado, here is the caption and photo put together at last:

Things went from bad to worse when, as the bright light at the end of the tunnel cleared, Eric Hovind saw glorious Valhalla in all its splendor.

Keep your eyes peeled for a new caption competition in a few weeks, and feel free to send in suggestions of captionless photos!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Creationism Caption Competition #1
• Kent Hovind Wins Golden Crocoduck Award
• Reverse Magazines
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• YouTube Thursday – Mr. Deity, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Wiseman

So dear reader, what exactly is Eric Hovind reaching for? Why does he have a look of terror on his cute creationist face? Why is he clinging to that rock so desperately? The answer to those questions is up to you.

Now onto the issue of a prize. As a student I generally don’t have any money, which means I cannot promise a prize, although I do have an extra signed copy of Ray Comfort’s latest masterpiece “You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make him think”. To be quite honest, such a book would be better off as a booby prize instead, but it is all I can offer at the moment. Perhaps I could get some cheap badges made, I’m open to suggestions.

So really, it’s a double competition now: Whoever comes up with the best caption and a great idea for some cheap (but cool) prizes will win…er…one of the prizes (and a copy of Ray’s book that I will sign / doodle in). You have a week to do so; off you go!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• Creationism Caption Competition #1 – Results
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Hilter & Evolution
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Ray’s “Apology”
• Reverse Magazines

The second video of his is part of the fantastic series “Why do people laugh at creationists?”, which involves the elegant destruction of popular creationist arguments. This is part 30, and if you want to see the other 29 (highly recommended) then check them out here. In this video, Thunderf00t points out the hypocritical nature of the Discovery Institute, and one of its prominent spokespeople, Casey Luskin.

Jesse Ventura (ex-Governor of Minnesota) has been on a campaign recently against waterboarding, and he should know all about it, given that he himself was waterboarded as part of SEREs (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training. He says it’s torture, but Elisabeth Hasselbeck of “The View” disagreed with him. Hilarity ensued as Ventura hit back with some great points, ending with the great line
“You give me a waterboard, one hour, and Dick Cheney and I’ll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders”. Jesse Ventura once said of religion “[it] is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”

Finally, I end with some wise words of wisdom from the legendary Steven Fry. His advice on being happy? Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort -- Ray’s “Apology”
• Answering The Ignorant -- Evolution
• God & Darwin

Well, after almost a month of inactivity on the blog, I’m back! I firstly want to apologise for not making even small posts during my absence, but I honestly had so much to do I either forgot or couldn’t get the time to write anything. I have been reading and following my favourite blogs though, so I haven’t missed any of the things that have happened recently. The reason for my absence was a large number of exams that I always try to prepare for, but tend to ignore right up until they are actually upon me. Thus for the last 3 weeks I was studying like crazy, only stopping to send the occasional message on Twitter. I think that during that period, Twitter replaced my blog almost completely, and I know that large number of my readers follow me on Twitter as well (and if you don’t yet, please follow!).

So, now that exams were over, I went to stay with my mother for the weekend, and was cut off from the internet (apart from my mobile phone’s internet) for 3 days. To top it off, when I arrived back from a 3 hour train journey yesterday, I was whisked away by my friends to a Godfather film marathon. It was the first time I’d seen any of the movies (please forgive me), and I thoroughly enjoyed them all. With the help of two bloggers and Skype friends of mine, Splendid Elles (@elles) and Andrew Milne (@footbullet), we successfully created a new religion using Twitter, based on a truly awesome British snack: JaffaCakeology. If you want to join, simply hashtag all your tweets with #JAFFACAKES, and pledge devotion to our prophet, @cmkempe.

Back to business then, and I have 4 months off doing practically nothing other than some programming and various projects. This leaves plenty of time for writing blog posts, both short and long. Today I’m going to write about a presentation I saw over the weekend. It was the start of Salisbury Festival, which is an event spanning several months in which numerous activities are run in the city where I grew up. One of the events this weekend was a talk given by Charles Foster, a lawyer who has written a book called “The Selfless Gene”. His talk was entitled “Living with God and Darwin” and promised to

[demonstrate] that orthodox Christianity is not incompatible with what evolutionary biology says about our world.

The real problem, he said,

centres around the ethical implications of natural selection, and what such a system – based on selfishness, waste and death – might say about the loving creator God of the Christian faith.

I thought such claims were interesting, so I went along to hear his argument. However the talk was not what was promised. Instead of showing how Christianity wasn’t incompatible, he simply spent his time laughing at creationist claims (along with the rest of the non-creationist audience). He talked at length about how Young Earth Creationists were foolish, how the evidence contradicts their claims, how nobody can possibly claim such things without being ignorant. This was all very well, but he didn’t cover how this was wrong in a Biblical sense, which would have actually supported his argument. I highly doubt there were any Young Earth Creationists in the audience; this is England we’re talking about! I highly doubt there were any Old Earth Creationists there either! He spent a good 20 minutes talking about creationism in it’s various forms, spending a few extra on Intelligent Design, and ending his case against creationism with a passionate argument against a “god of the gaps”.

The rest of the talk was a haphazard presentation on the evidence for evolution, and I wasn’t impressed. He didn’t go into any detail, and his slides were all extremely bad quality, as if they had been photographed from some other talk. He never mentioned the mechanisms that make evolution tick, and he kept on blaming the “neo-darwinists” and “disciples of Dawkins” on most of the confusion over evolution. Overall though, there was nothing there that could convince anyone of either position. At the beginning he told people he would make creationists in the audience “very angry”, and atheists (well, “disciples of Dawkins”) very angry too. Neither of his prophecies held true.

At the end of the talk, an atheist at the back stood up and asked him to give the evidence for God, since his talk was about showing how God was compatible with Darwin. Mr Foster explained that the way he saw it, the lack of explanation for civilisation and morality is an indicator that a God exists. In other words, because science cannot explain everything about us, God must still have some hold. What a strange conclusion for the man to make, given his argument against a “god of the gaps” that he made clear earlier on. I started to raise my hand, but another atheist across the room from me got there first, pointing out his contradiction.

So poor Mr Foster lost out to the regular thorn in the side of theists: self contradiction. Such a pity. His book was on sale in the lobby afterwards, but there was no way I was paying £11.99 for it. I suspect it will include all the same repeated arguments against creationism, which in this country aren’t really needed. Nobody apart from the fringe churches accept creationism as a legitimate claim anymore. I further suspect that the arguments for evolution will be equally bad, thus misleading the people who read it into thinking that science knows very little about the subject.

Possibly Related Posts:

• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention
• Religion Destroys Cognitive Ability
• Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins
• Conversations With The Deluded
• Evolution Vs Creationism

The video presents some very bad logic in the first 30 seconds, when it tries to explain the “bananaman” reference:

“Bananaman” is a reference to an illustration presented by Comfort, in which he compared the complex design elements of a coke can to the complex design elements of a banana, in order to demonstrate that thoughtful design by an a designer is required for both examples. (0:20 -- 0:35)

Ray wants us to believe that God made the banana, but even knowing this is untrue (at least in regards to the modern banana) all it does is prove what we know already; that certain things in the world are the result of human intervention. Whilst it is true that the banana is a product of design, the same cannot be said if you replaced the banana with a wild blackberry, which is perfectly edible, very sweet, and not the product of human intervention. Replace the blackberry with something like the pineapple or the coconut, and you immediately have to start questioning the sanity of the “designer” Ray implies on such things. Pineapples and coconuts have to be some of the hardest fruits to get into, not to mention the amount of preparation needed before eating.

When you do not know the process in which certain things are created, you cannot compare them to things of which the creation process is known. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the creation process of the wild banana is partially known, and we refer to it as the theory of Evolution. This doesn’t explain the entire process of the banana creation, but it certainly gives a mechanism for understanding how it could have possibly come about. This is a far greater explanation than the idea that “God did it” which has no evidence and holds no grounds in proper scientific debate.

Ray presents to us his often-repeated lie that atheists somehow misrepresented his point in the banana video:

However, atheists removed the coke can from the video version, and sent it across the internet, saying that Comfort believed the banana was conclusive proof of God’s existence, missing the point of the illustration completely. (0:42 -- 0:55)

You see this simply contradicts the last point, as Ray admits that the comparison was to show that a designer is needed for both coke can and banana. In the original video (even in the edited version which only shows the banana) Ray mentions God as the creator of the banana, and he also mentions the coke can in comparison. His exact words were:

Now if you go to the top of the banana, you’ll find as with the soda can makers, they placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top.

Implying that there must be a designer, and then stating that the designer is God, therefore proving God’s existence seems to be exactly what Comfort had in mind. If Ray had not mentioned God as the designer, then he may actually have a point about not trying to prove God’s existence, but as soon as he said “so God has placed a tab at the top” he left the realm of speculation and entered the realm of certainty.

They also said that the banana had been modified over time by man to fit in the palm of the hand, and not by God (0:55 -- 1:02)

Well yeah, that’s because it has been. This intervention is very well documented.

But in their effort to make him look foolish, atheists gave Ray Comfort and international platform for his message. (1:03 -- 1:09)

Effort? I think you’ll find Ray does enough to make himself look foolish without us there to help. Anyone with a (to quote Ray) “brain that works” can tell his arguments are weak, and his views on science are stuck in the middle ages. The number of times simple scientific concepts have to be explained to him reveals his as the willingly ignorant fool that he is. Now for his “apology”:

Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand.” (1:31 -- 1:50)

So once your original premise is destroyed, you simply move the goalposts back a bit? Nice work Ray, but while this “truth” might be logical to your warped mind, you don’t give any evidence that God exists to give us this knowledge. In fact, since your original reason for using the banana argument was to show that certain things must have a designer, and that the designer of the banana is God, I fail to see how you can simply assert God exists when your argument for him via the banana was so utterly destroyed. I can do the same thing see: My car was designed, and the designer was God, therefore God exists. What’s that? My car was designed by Ford? Well…God gave Ford the knowledge and the materials to design the car in the first place! It isn’t a proof if you have to assume God exists for the proof to work.

Ray also leaps on the chance to misquote Richard Dawkins in the film “Expelled”, claiming he thinks aliens seeded life on this planet.

In “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed”, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, ‘What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?’ he answered,

‘at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.’ (2:17 -- 3:22)

The beginning of this quote is left out, and the full thing reveals some vital clues to Dawkins’ explanation, specifically the words “It could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere…”. This clearly shows that Dawkins is speaking hypothetically, in response to the question by Stein. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such he isn’t going to close his mind to the possibility of intelligent design. However, if he is going to explain it, he is going to do it rationally and scientifically, not by mentioning some sort of supernatural deity.

Dawkins again says in the middle that such ideas are a “possibility”, that they are “intriguing”, and that you might find evidence if you looked at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. However he never stated that he believes such things, nor that any evidence has been found to suggest it. He goes on to say that such intelligence would have had to come about by some kind of natural (and possibly Darwinian) means. Things don’t just magically appear out of nowhere, at least not in the realms of science.

So Professor Dawkins believes that highly intelligent aliens from somewhere else in the universe may have created us. (3:46 -- 3:54)

No Ray! No. Commenting on an idea, or even trying to explain some form of natural intelligent design does not automatically mean you believe it. As I said before, Dawkins is well aware that there is no evidence for such views, and he didn’t attempt to present evidence in the film. He was commenting on a hypothetical basis for intelligent design in the universe. Stein may have had ulterior motives for asking the question, but Dawkins answer was accurate. Aliens seeding life on Earth is at least one possibility of intelligent design that doesn’t invoke the supernatural.

Will there be a debate between Comfort and Dawkins? I doubt it, but one can dream. I’d personally love to see both Dawkins and Hitchens take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for a double smackdown of logic.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins
• YouTube Thursday -- Thunderf00t, Jesse Ventura, & Steven Fry
• Children of Evolution
• Conservapedia Article of the Month (and Year)

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

Ok, so the subject is Evolution, the scientific theory. It’s a debate concerning one of the fundamentals of biology, but why not throw in philosophy as well? Given that evolutionary biologists are often religious, I do not see how Evolution can been seen as a purely “atheistic” idea. On the subject of the whole “atheists believe nothing created everything”, the so-called “Ray Comfort Fallacy”, please read my previous blog post.

2. Man can’t create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

Still not even close to the area of evolutionary biology. True, man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, but why does this mean that some unknown “Intelligent Designer” has this ability? Humans are very intelligent designers, and yet we have limits as to what we can do in this universe. How do our failures imply that there exist beings that can do these things? It’s not intellectually dishonest to say that there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer, simply because there isn’t any evidence, and we never will. A natural explanation will be found for everything, because to imply some kind of supernatural being is no explanation at all. Even if we can’t explain things naturally, there is no saying we won’t be able to at some point, and it certainly doesn’t make the supernatural any more viable.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

Finally, 3 stops down on the debate train and we get to biology. We also see Ray Comfort’s dishonesty out in the open, because he knows the answer to this question already. It has been explained to him at great length by P.Z. Myers after a few blogs post went back and forth between Ray’s blog and Pharyngula. After Ray challenged P.Z. to explain the origins of sex, P.Z. did so, and did so with gusto. I don’t think you could ask for a better summation of the evolution of species and sex, so I won’t even try to write one.

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

Ray needs to learn how to use Google, because the results for a simple search will reveal far more than you could ever want. Panda’s Thumb has a great article about it.

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

Nope, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I repeat, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Every time this argument comes up I still find it hard to believe it’s still being used.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There’s a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

Calling Archaeopteryx a “bird with teeth” is a gross understatement. The fact that the creature has more in common with small dinosaurs than birds isn’t just confined to teeth, but the claws, tail, toes, and other skeletal features. Archaeopteryx is a bird, but it is also a dinosaur, and it is clearly a transitional form that shares elements of both, showing how dinosaurs first started evolving into birds.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution’s many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future.” Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

Ray presents this view but doesn’t go into detail with specific examples of paleontologists doing this. Double blind dating is done on fossils to ensure the result isn’t skewed, so I don’t know where Ray gets the idea that numbers are simply placed on fossils at random. The theory predicts we should find these fossils, and when we do find them, they should rightly be presented to scientific enquiry. Evolutionary biologists have advanced science beyond the realms thought possible, and we now know so much more about our origins. In return, we have used this knowledge to forge a better future for our race. Where religion kills and feeds a misleading doctrine, science shows us the true light, and we are much better for it.

Possibly Related Posts:

• God & Darwin
• The Noah’s Ark Paradox
• Jesus Week
• Religion Destroys Cognitive Ability
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’

Macro evolution is the theory of a species changing to another.

Micro evolution is small changes that DO NOT create a new species.

Ok, so it was the standard definition that creationists use when covering the topics of micro and macro evolution. One of them sent me an article from Answers in Genesis to read in response to one of my points about evolution and “increasing” information (Dr. Lenski’s famous E. coli experiment). From that article I clicked through to an article about Noah’s ark, and that is when it struck me.

Noah’s Ark is a paradox.

At least, it is a creationist paradox. If we are to take the Bible as literally true, that Noah took 2 of each “kind” of animal on the ark (or 7 of each clean animal) then we have an immediate clue as to the cryptic meaning of the word “kind”. It cannot mean “species”. There are far more species in the world today than there could have fitted on Noah’s Ark, even if you reduce the number by the species who could survive on water or in water.

Yet the creationist denies macro evolution (one species changing into a new species). To them, it is impossible. This leaves them with the tricky situation of explaining how all the animals today could possibly exist. As “kinds” are not species, or at least not every single species, then the only way for us to have the animals we do today is for the animals on the ark to have macro-evolved. If macro-evolution is wrong, then every single species today must have been on the Ark, which is impossible.

So either Noah’s Ark is a paradox, or it helps the evolution theory along. Assuming Noah’s Ark isn’t a paradox and is true, then macro-evolution must be true as well. If the creationist denies this then they have to admit that the Noah’s Ark story is inaccurate, and if Noah’s Ark is inaccurate how many other parts of the Bible are as well? Not only is the evidence for evolution clear, but it has to be for this simple biblical story to start making sense.

Personally, I don’t believe a word of the Noah’s Ark story. The paradox goes well beyond that of just elementary biology, but into boat construction and the amount of water on the planet, as well as the lack of geological evidence. However it poses a serious problem for believers, who must either admit that evolution is true or their story is false.

Possibly Related Posts:

• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention
• Religion Destroys Cognitive Ability
• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• Damn You FOX!
• God & Darwin

Not only do these articles simply rely on lies and misconstruing scientific research (and often just making stuff up), they are full of logical fallacies. For instance, in the main page excerpt for the “article of the year”, Conservapedia writes:

In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: “The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.”

As if this is proof of anything other than the American society’s general lack of science education or outright ignorance or refusal to do proper research into the area! On the actual article page, a critical analysis is given of the statistics within the scientific community, with possible explanations as to why so many scientists accept the theory (think “Expelled”). Here are a few section headings from the article:

• Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation (No idea what hoaxes and frauds have to do with the theory…if anything they prove science works)
• Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms (Of course they forget to define what the word “clear” entails. Perhaps they want a fossil of the crocoduck)
• Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution (Let’s just combine physics and biology fora moment…)
• Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates (No such thing as a creation scientist, nor has any creationist actually won a debate on points. Style maybe, but points? No.)
• Theory of Evolution and Liberalism (Just to throw some liberal bashing into the mix as well)

The Richard Dawkins article spreads the lie that Dawkins was “stumped” by a creationist question, and that he has failed to answer this question ever since. For those who are interested, a detailed analysis of the video and the facts behind it can be found here.

Possibly Related Posts:

• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Ray’s “Apology”
• Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• YouTube Thursday – Thunderf00t, Jesse Ventura, & Steven Fry
• God & Darwin

On 29th December 2008 I set off to visit my girlfriend in Georgia, USA. This was the first time I had been to America since starting this blog, so I thought I had better write my experiences down on it. My flight left at around midday from London Gatwick, and whilst in the air I had planned to do some work, but “The Dark Knight” was on instead so I watched that (and I really don’t regret it!).

Landing in Atlanta airport was where I first encountered things that made me think to myself “Adrian, I’ve a feeling we’re not in England anymore”. At passport control shortly after leaving the plane, we were asked to scan our fingerprints (all of them) on a special scanner. For whatever reason, the security guy at my desk was having a conversation about thumbs to his neighbouring colleague (I guess when they have to deal with fingers all day, that is all they have left to talk about). He laughingly joked (in a southern drawl):

Opposable thumbs! That’s what separates us from the apes!

I was now stuck with a dilemma. In polite conversation back home, I would have probably corrected the man on his massive error in simple biology (heck, you only have to look at an ape to realise they have opposable thumbs). However, my rational mind kicked in, and I realised that this was (a) the man who was going to let me enter the USA, and (b) a Bible bashing middle-of-the-bible-belt state, where I would probably be lynched as a heretic or something. I decided against saying anything, although I walked away from the booth with a smirk.

Tourists are often the best people to review a country, simply because they have no “national pride” for it, and they can view it objectively. To any American reading this blog who works in some high up position at an airport, take heed. As a paying customer, I do not want to wait 30 minutes for my bag to appear on the carousel, to then walk down a corridor and have it taken away from me. Sadly however, this is precisely what happened, and as I waived goodbye to my bag, the attendant told me I would be able to pick it up (again) at the exit. Proceeding through a security check (because apparently the 20 minutes I spent doing this at Gatwick wasn’t good enough) I caught an internal train to the baggage collection (the real one this time). There I met my girlfriend, and waited at the carousel for my bag. The previous statement is chronologically accurate. The baggage collection was literally by the entrance to the airport, meaning anyone could simply walk in and steal one…fantastic. If American bureaucracy is anything, it is inefficient and insecure, and that is really the best I can say about it (sorry guys).

Yes, I do realise that I’ve just spent the last 3 paragraphs complaining about airports, so I will continue with some good bits. Things I like about America:

• You go all out on billboards. American highways make Piccadilly Circus and Times Square look rubbish in comparison.
• Wal-Mart. If it weren’t for their anti-union policies I think I would shop there all the time…maybe.
• American Cheese. I have no idea why, but those artificial slices of goodness are so much tastier over there. American cheese in England is awful.
• You are gun crazy. I bought my friend Conrad a gun magazine, simply because they seem to have replaced pornography over there. It’s very odd seeing the “top shelf” filled with pictures of guns rather than…well…lady parts.

Suffice to say, my time over there was too brief, and I only got to see a few dozen churches dotted about the place. I did however see a few religion billboards and anti-evolution signs (“Are they making a monkey out of you?”) which was fun. On my last day there, I met an actual creationist (whilst wearing my “Thank God I’m and atheist” t-shirt) who admitted to liking Sarah Palin. I asked her “How can you like her? She thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old!” and she replied “Well, can you prove it isn’t?”. Yes. Yes I could, and then proceeded to tell her about radiometric dating techniques.

The flight back was uneventful, although I had 3 hours to get across London in order to attend my first lecture (I’m never doing that again). In the taxi ride back to my house, the driver was talking about how his wife got annoyed when he gawked at other women, and he turned to me and said “It’s not my fault! It’s just millions of years of Evolution!”. I knew I was home; a place which although quickly falling to pieces as a country, still has taxi drivers who know biology. I let him keep the change.

Possibly Related Posts:

• The Pledge of Allegiance
• God & Darwin
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention
• Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins
• “No Intelligance Allowed”