The fact that Ayala’s a proponent of ESCR demonstrates that he is at odds with the Catholic faith which he grew up in. Just because we can do ESCR doesn’t mean that we have to do it – a human embryo is a human life, if it isn’t then what purpose does conception serve?

And on a similar note @7 – science and religion are not at odds with eachother, and never have been … BUT … the theology must be right and the science must be right! The tremendous number of priest-scientists is testimony to this.

Sigh indeed. So much for “there are no militant atheists.” In my book, wishing violence is pretty damn close to doing it.

And thus the “you don’t ever see atheists talking about violence!” argument died a quick death….by way of a rusty knife.

I mean, I’m all with PZ on the outrage over the Pope allegedly covering up sexual abuse, 100%. But unless the majority of Catholics are somehow extensively familiar with the recent Pharyngula/Intersection rape spat, the only way they’re gonna interpret that is as a veiled threat at the Pope – an office which, unfortunately regardless of opinion on religion, has faced assassination attempts before.

Not to mention that the appropriate response to cretins engaged in sexual abuse is…references to sexual abuse in their direction. When did hypocrisy become a virtue, exactly?

There is something disturbing about the idea that there is no “good”, only subjective impressions that everyone has–that any slob is free to kick Milton out of the canon, for instance. You could say something like “too bad for you, it’s all subjective.” Well, not all people agree with you, including some very informed ones…

Jon, I don’t really disagree with your above points. I was generally talking earlier in hypotheticals – not really espousing my own opinion on the issue. Although I think we disagree trivially on how “knowledge” is used, we wouldn’t really disagree on the core of our arguments.

I do very much agree that modern philosophy is much more than strict empiricism. Someone upthread here (if not, maybe another recent thread) even mistakenly called empiricism “epistomology” which, of course, is only a half-truth. I thought that kind of comment played well into the hands of “New Atheists ignore philosophy.” It’s hard to deny they do when people are making fallacies like that one!

There is something disturbing about the idea that there is no “good”, only subjective impressions that everyone has–that any slob is free to kick Milton out of the canon, for instance.

You’re right here. If an argument against religion is that the personal benefits it provides are worthless because they’re surbjective, then we should really be seeing people crying loudly not just for the abolition of religion but also for the death of literature, art, and music, as well.

I can’t believe that Professor Ayala said anything of the sort, because this is the “atheists abet fundamentalism” argument used to shut people up. Nothing I know of Francisco Ayala suggests that he would stoop to that level, and I hope The Times will be publishing a correction.

He seems to be a good choice for what they say the reward stands for, but that omission seems rather underhanded.

Along with NCSE’s Genie Scott, Francisco J. Ayala may be our most important opponent of evolution denialism, especially since his testimony was important in at least one case that was heard before the United States Supreme Court (One of the ones back in the 1980s) and, most recently, before the California Board of Regents in a case in which a “Christian” school challenged the science entrance requirements for admission to the University of California’s elite campuses, such as Berkeley and UCLA.