Atheist at Ken Ham talk in Leicester

Well just got back from Leicester listening to Ken Ham talk about creationism this Thursday evening. Handed out a few leaflets to people attending on science education, but it became clear during the talk that Ken Ham’s version is smoke and mirrors.

His talk centred on there being observable science. That there was only the same facts, but that a creationist looked at it from the standpoint of the Word of God and others from the human reasoning stand point. What he seemed to suggest is that from our respective biases we drew conclusions from the same evidence – but his was true because it was based on the Word of God.

No – the world being billions of years old is confirmed by geology. He did show a video claiming that Mount St. Helens showed that the world could be created in a very short space of time – which it does not of course. There was a video on the Chameleon (shown in the Creation Science Museum) which suggested that swivelling eyes, and a brain that could process the information, let alone the ability to change colour, was proof enough that God did it.

Talking to one of the Answers In Genesis (AiG) staff outside the talk he claimed that I could not have a form of morality because it was not based on the bible. I pointed out that even the view of morality based on the bible had changed, and that in civilisations without the bible moral codes had developed. I even mentioned John Rawls and how the veil of ignorance worked – this went over his head because he said that human reasoning could not say why the holocaust was wrong. I pointed out that it was wrong to kill people on the basis of their belief or ethnicity, how did I know? Well because it was arbitrary and I would not want to live in such a society that did – and part of that was empathy with people and the whole veil of ignorance thing. That I could recognise such action as being a crime against humanity.

Ken Ham himself mentioned that Genesis was the foundation for the Christian message, and that evolution was wrong in the common descent because of it. In short, the literal interpretation of Genesis was essential not only to Christianity but also to moral virtual because secularism by not being based on God’s Word would lead to evil like abortion, pornography and gay marriage – even racism(?)

The display for this was two battle ships fighting one another. A recurrent theme was that secularism was not about being neutral – it was open hostility to God’s Word. It misses the crucial point that secularism is not based on whether you believe in evolution or not, faith or not, abortion or not. The principle is that the state does not use it’s power to enforce religion on it’s citizens, allowing them the right to their consciences in this regard but not to have dominion over another over a faith claim. But no, apparently morality is not something that atheists can have.

He also mentioned about seeing the Ben Stein movie Expelled. I kind of see watching Ken Ham talk as my way of making Hi we never met as a species ...up for not seeing it in Minneapolis. One video Ken showed was two palaeontologists digging up a dinosaur fossil, and one says that it is millions of years old and the other that it is 4,300 years old because the bible tells me – then leaving it at that with no evidence accept that the bible says. As if both sides were just two different points of view like whether to support Manchester City or Man United – only that one side would be for justice and glory.

All the videos depended on the audience going “Wow, how amazing, so complex, there had to be a God.” Then Ken Ham following up with bible scriptures. At one point the Trinity was mentioned in scripture given proof by the perfection of creation. The leaps being made within seconds of one association over the other were breathtaking and liquid refreshment was needed to get over the nerve of someone that was prepared to say that they loved science and yet could pretend that the facts supported that the earth was thousands of years old and their view of Christianity.

The lecture ended with a look at the various books and DVDs we may want to buy. I was able to pass on that opportunity. The way that AiG staff can say that they do not want intelligent design in schools but Ken Ham can say that they should get involved in school boards to promote creationism is a double faced show. They do want books in the school libraries that denote the earth as a few thousand years old. They want society to be based on their human interpretation of the bible (something they do not accept – it is God’s of course) and the sooner we live our lives to the message of Christ the better.

There was the part where apparently with death and all an atheist has no purpose. May as well just die now. But through Christ we have meaning and a reason to live a life based on God’s Word. He quoted Dawkins as saying get used to the truth when asked if it was a bleak message science mentioned about existence. It missed the part that what we feel about facts is neither here nor there only whether they are true to be called that. Being alive makes us the lucky ones and we can find our purpose for ourselves.

The problem with Ham’s message is that this means taking away my rights, and making science second fiddle to what they claim the bible tells us. Ken Ham even claimed that Genesis was the only creation account that told us everything – clearly therefore it was true! Apparently no other religion now or before tells us about our origins. Later on he showed us a video that talked about how the aboriginals had a similar tale of creation to the bible. Which made me wonder how much of the double talk the listeners were hearing.

In the end we headed down the pub and showed that far from life having a pointless existence, lacking any meaning when you reject a sacred text as being literally true, there were things worth living for. Not just beer, but companionship and that it is better to talk about things as they are then talking about things as you wish they were.

Was the protest worth it? Well it was difficult to get the people to talk about science – ended up with the argument that personal revelation in their lives was more important then human reasoning. It gave them comfort, and meant that they knew what was right because it was in the bible. One of them had never heard of Lot and the seduction of him by his daughters – this surprised the gentleman because an atheist knew the bible. It surprised me because he worked for AiG and the account is in Genesis after all. I had asked him how we knew paedophilia was wrong as it was not mentioned in the bible. Not even in the ten commandments – graven images more of a sin then that? He tried to say that it was an affront to god – I asked if paedophilia was too? He could not bring himself to say that human thought derived such acts to be immoral and unethical – for him that could only be derived because of the bible.

Please do not think this is just a bunch of crazy people who mean us no harm. They really believe it is to the betterment of society that they project their belief onto how science is discussed, and that society must embrace Jesus (as defined in their ministry) before the world becomes a happier place – or Armageddon comes. They really cannot conceive that the world could have a noble purpose without that kind of belief. I beg to differ, and hope that science education is not befallen to faith claims but to evidence which is not based on the stand point of a religious text.

My thanks to Pennie and Chris who gave me a lift, and to fellow Leicester Secular Society members who attended the protest.

Advertisements

18 Comments

Filed under atheism, Religion, Science

18 responses to “Atheist at Ken Ham talk in Leicester

  1. While I think that much of your criticism against Ham is correct – I do have a few questions.

    1) Where do you get your morality from if there is no God and hence One who sets the moral absolutes? (I am sure you are familiar with Dostoievski’s phrase: If God does not exist, everything is permissible).

    2) Your meaning in life is to go to the pub and have some intelligent conversation with your friends? Please clarify this for me. I do not want to misrepresent your position.

    P.S. Your point about pedophilia is interesting. Jesus does not talk about this either. He also does not talk about gays. My (educated) guess is not because the Old Testament (and later Jesus) did not consider them sinful and immoral, but they were simply not issues at the time. The Bible and the commandments are NOT exhaustive – and of course – they do not address issues that were irrelevant then. While the analogy is not perfect (it is used just to make a point), the Bible does not address having sex with your grandmother either. That does not mean that it did not judge as wrong.

    How do these people mean harm to you (your last paragraph)?

  2. Hi Chris

    A1) Human reasoning and reflection. Even the supposed morality that people get from the bible differs over the generations and civilisations. Using the bible it was deemed in the dark ages that masturbation was worse then fornication because the latter was considered more natural.

    Even claiming that a sacred text comes from an absolute authority, you have human interpretation into both the significance and the meaning. However, most of us would not go for genocide (acceptable if the none believer as the Old Testament recalls) and that is not based on bible teaching.

    In my blog I mention moral philosophy including John Rawls. Recommend following the link above and reading his book “A Theory of Justice”.

    A2) You miss out that I wrote: “Not just beer, but companionship and that it is better to talk about things as they are then talking about things as you wish they were.” I suppose I could find the meaning about life, the universe and everything on my own but it seems more fun doing so in the company of others – and less hard work as there are better people than myself to answer such questions.

    P.S. Morality: – the person from AiG did try to tell me that every law of the land comes from the bible. My point on paedophilia, and you mention the point too, is that the bible does not cover all aspects of morality and behaviour, or how society should be run. We are left with are very human thoughts about how these things are to be viewed.

    What seems more crucial then having God for morality is a human brain that can conceive such concepts, evaluate them, and enforce them. I may not think that God is there to hold me to account, but I certainly think society, my conscience, and empathy with others and values that I hold can. Civilization exists because of the social ability for us to live in ways with each other.

    P.S. Harm: well as I hope the links I used showed the observations in the videos that Ken Ham presented were not accurate at all, nor supported the claims to a creator or the earth being a few thousand years old. The harm is that they are trying to say it is just a different discernment of facts based on God’s Word – which makes them valid. When talking about the age of the earth relying on the bible to tell you rather than the evidence of the earth is harmful to science education.

    Also they wish to restrict my way of life based on their religious principles. Their faith claims are not ones that should be allowed to constrain my way of life. Anymore than a Muslim’s religious beliefs should constrain a Christians way of life. Liberty requires that faith claims about how you should live your life are not given the force of law. All of us deserve that freedom to believe or not believe as we shall – we do not deserve the power to inflict that on to others.

    Ken Ham in his battleship analogy seems to think that Christians must enforce what the bible says on all of society. Yet even then it is cherry picking – Paul’s observations on slavery were thankfully dismissed by the AiG guy, but presumably we do not feel that the bible validates the keeping of slaves if we so wished. That we now think such views of other people to be immoral even though the bible did not consider it as such at the time it was written.

    Some other blogs on the subject may clarify things for you:

    A reason for us being moral:
    https://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/the-way-we-are/

    Even without God:
    https://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/moral-without-a-god/

    Where morality comes from (The Economist article):
    https://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/moral-thinking/

  3. Hello Homoeconomicunet (sorry – but i do not know your name),

    First of all – thanks for the patience to answer. I will try to answer by starting from the bottom.

    1) I do not think that you are right about Ken Ham being harmful – and I seriously doubt that he wants to enforce what the Bible says about society. But even if he wants – in a democracy you are exposed to the possibility that the majority may vote something wrong. They have just much a right to vote (e.g. for the death penalty) just as the rest of the people (be they atheists, or Buddhists etc). If the decision of the majority is wrong/immoral – one hopes that the courts will step in and rectify the situation.

    Paul’s observations on slavery? Paul does not address the issue of slavery directly – he simply gives some instructions to slaves (and the owners) on how to live in the situation that they were in. He certainly was NOT a reformer from this point of view – but I hope that you agree that he can hardly be faulted for that – since I am not aware of any fighter (at least major fighter) for the abolition of slavery before Wilberforce (a strong Christian). In any case- his “calling” was not to fight for the abolition of slavery, and I think that it would be unfair to fault him for that (Plato does not speak against pedophilia as far as I know?).

    2) I agree with you that the Bible is open to interpretation – but so is any written human document. I am still not sure what your purpose in life is (of course – you do not have to tell me), and how you can find a great purpose when you believe that you came from matter and you are going into nothingness. This is just a personal observation – maybe you can find a purpose even given those premises.

    3) You are getting your morals from human reasoning and reflection. You also say: “I may not think that God is there to hold me to account, but I certainly think society, my conscience, and empathy with others and values that I hold can. Civilization exists because of the social ability for us to live in ways with each other.”

    Now – of course conscience and human reasoning are important. In fact – the Bible says something similar (I know you don’t believe in the Bible, but it is relevant here):

    Romans 2:14-16 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
    hey show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

    However – I am sure that you (just as the rest of us) many times do not listen to your conscience. So the conscience cannot really enforce and assure morality – it functions more as a compass.

    As far as the society goes – there are (and were) various societies along the centuries. If morality is a social construct (as many secular people believe) – then one has to admit that burning witches was morally right, because the society (at least most) of that time believed so. Also – there are societies today that believe that gays should be put to death. Does that make it morally right? I do not think so.

    As far as empathy goes – some have more than others, and some seem to lack it altogether. What do you do with the ones who do not have much of it?

    I still believe that Dostoievski is right:”If God does not exist – then everything is permitted.” This does not mean that every atheist will do anything he wants. And it does not mean that all atheists are bad and will go ballistic. It simply means that there is no absolute control and limit to what evil a man can do (if he hopes that he can get away with it).

    Are there “moral” (whatever this means for you) and “nice” atheists? Of course. Perhaps the majority are. However – may I suggest that this is because they are still “running on the fumes” of their parents and grandparents who probably went to church or synagogue? And even if they did not go to church – they were all (I am referring to the ones in the West) raised in a society with deep Judeo-Christian values which were instilled in them by their teachers and the laws of the countries in which they live.

    Thus – a Theory of Justice written by an atheist from the west (because he is standing on the shoulders of hundreds of years of Judea-Christian values) – will look very different than one written by an atheist raised in the jungles of Africa (if there is such a thing :)).

    Again – I am not contesting (as I said above – the Bible supports this) that there is “a law written in the hearts of man” (by God in my opinion – perhaps in yours by evolution?), that everybody has a conscience – and that there is a desire in educated men from the west to live in relative peace and harmony.

    However – there is also a SELFISH GENE in all of us (to use Dawkins’ term – I would call it self-centered sin) – and there is no reason why someone who wants to profit most from life and get most of the pleasure out of it should want to suppress this in many cases (as long as he does not get caught to be punished for it).

    In any case – I will try to read (when I have time) the links that you gave me. Perhaps you can enlighten me by discussing a specific case:

    Why shouldn’t I divorce my wife and leave my children without a father if I found a better looking (and younger) woman with whom I fell in love?? How would an atheistic morality address this?

    P.S. I am not sure how the Bible was used to condemn masturbation as worse than fornication – since masturbation is NOT mentioned in the Bible at all. Also – I am not sure what you want to say about genocide.

  4. Hi evedyahu

    Yes Ken Ham’s version of observable science is harmful; whatever we can know about the world or whatever science allows us to achieve is subject to the bias that the bible is the world of god. The evidence that the earth is billions of years old; that Homo sapiens were not around with dinosaurs, that natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution – is important. When someone tries to subvert science education for religious reasons (evolution leads to atheism leads to Nazi Germany) this is not about pluralism and democracy. It is about throwing away your right to know about the world you live in, and living in a theocracy.

    As to Paul and Plato – the point being made is that we should think that it is irrational to assume that there is an absolute morality to take from the bible, or indeed from any text. We do cherry pick, interpret, reflect and reason for ourselves. Sure we have many particular concepts and biases in our outlook. Claiming god tells me however and that no more thinking is required about what is written is a get out of jail card no one should have in a debate about the good life even if the pen moved in a mysterious way.

    With regards the culture within which we have grown up, I would suggest that much of our current thinking is based on the enlightenment – but these values are still very much under threat, whether the sciences or political liberties and human rights in the name of someone else’s god. Religious people can be secularists, believing the wall of separation between church and state is one that protects the liberty of people from government and their faith from state control. Ideas are not owned, but can inspire others and indeed take on forms never intended or envisaged by the originator – such is what communication does for us.

    With regards God, the control is very much self motivated towards pleasing a mind reading, outer obsessing control freak. If some one’s morality depends on believing in such an entity (many at these sort of meetings claim it does), I would not only question your motives but think that you should be a decent human being because that is what you want – the reward is the conduct of your actions and not the after life hope explaining why you stick to such behaviour. That you recognise the benefit to yourself and to other people – would choose to live that life even if this life is the only one you would ever have.

    Atheism is a conclusion as to the lack of reliability of any faith claim to know that there is a god, let alone what this being wants me to eat, sleep with, and how I should bathe and what I should do. The discourse of faith is the product of human thought, and is as debatable as any other.

    If I answer your question about your wife I am not using atheism to answer that question. I would however think your wife deserved better and hope she knows a good lawyer should you take that course of action. You are responsible for your own actions, but no one exists to fulfill another person’s expectations. We can only be disappointed when they do, and then decide how to act when that happens.

    The wasting of seed is mentioned in the bible (though it may not have been actually masturbation, more retreat at critical juncture). The bible was made use of to describe wanking as unnatural while sex was considered a natural act – hence the punishment. If you think this kind of thinking does not exist to date under law there in England sex in a church grave yard has stiffer penalties then in other public spaces.

    Genocide – crime against humanity, immoral and no excuse even if your god tells you to do it.

  5. Gupter

    Hi Dude

    As the “AIG guy” in question I’d just like to put a few things straight. (in love)

    1) Your argument didn’t go over my head I was just unwilling to accept the fact that you wouldent answer my question. You just kept repeating that things that are wrong are wrong because they’re wrong and attempted to dress it up by saying things like “You are responsible for your own actions, but no one exists to fulfill another person’s expectations. We can only be disappointed when they do, and then decide how to act when that happens.” I mean dude! What does that mean!!! If the individual is responsible for what course of action is moraly right and moraly wrong and especially if the majority are in agreement then how can you say that genocide is wrong? Do you believe in moral absolutes?

    2) Everybody who works for AIG knows who Lot is! I can only assume you imagined that part of our conversation.

    3) Where does this bonkers idea come from that we want atheistic school teachers to teach creationism to scool kids?! All we want is for evolution to be taught under proper scientific scrutiny. If it’s acurate then there should be nothing for anybody to worry about!!

    4) Can you point to any relevant passage in the Bible or any peice of AIG literature that says “Also they wish to restrict my way of life based on their religious principles. Their faith claims are not ones that should be allowed to constrain my way of life.” Just read that statement again, “Their faith claims are not ones that should be allowed to constrain my way of life.” who is the one making threatening statements? You say “Liberty requires that faith claims about how you should live your life are not given the force of law. All of us deserve that freedom to believe or not believe as we shall – we do not deserve the power to inflict that on to others” Then why were you demonstrating and handing out leaflets outside a public meeting?

    5) Outside the meeting you told me that because God didn’t mention peadophilia in the ten commandments and that it must mean its OK from a Christian perspective. God gave us all a conscience that we might know the difference between what is good and what is bad and we can use this within the framework of what the scriptures say. Thats rather different from making things up as we go along in order to justify the things we enjoy and condemn the thinks we dont.

    6) Actually I did not “dismiss” Pauls instructions to slaves and slave masters I merely put them in their proper context.

    Apart from that I’m sure what you have written here was an acurate version of events!

    Just one final thought. I’ve always wondered why the many athiests I come across so quickly go from saying how open minded they are to ridiculing people that have ideas or beliefs that are opposed to their own (see Proff Dawkins “free thinkers” threads for some classy examples). This blog to your credit at least attempts to stear clear of some of the hysteria expounded on other sites but even you resort to using words like dangerous and try to imply that we are attempting to oppress you in some way. In my experience Christians simply are not like this. (The fruits of the spirit are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”) Could you in laymans terms just explain why Christians are “dangerous”?

    Oh one more… if I think you are wrong, am I wrong to think to think that your wrong? And if I’m right why am I right? Can anybody be wrong about what they believe and if so why?

  6. Gupter

    Oh just spotted another one. No, I didn’t tell you that every law of the land came from the Bible! That would be daft! I dont remember the Bible saying anything about paying road tax!

  7. Hi Gupter

    A1) The context was the question that someone asked about leaving his wife for a younger woman. He asked what (if not supposedly the bible) would stop him? Hence my reply “You are responsible for your own actions, but no one exists to fulfill another person’s expectations. We can only be disappointed when they do [run off with a younger woman], and then decide how to act when that happens.” In my answer I hope that would be the law.

    A2) Yes but when I asked you about Lot having sex with his two daughters you did not have an answer. Which surprised me as you are AiG and presumably this is an example of how Genesis underpins the doctrine of Christianity?

    A3) Brilliant we agree that children should nto be taught the world is a few thousand years old because it has no scientific validity whatsoever. What a relief. However you want creationist books in the school libraries and children to be taught to put faith in how you interpret the bible on the natural world beyond scientific observations that have been peer reviewed and subject to inquiry.

    The suggestion that we have the same facts, just different view points is slightly wrong. Because you claim that the bible is evidence – and that on the basis of your faith can override anything that science can offer. That is what should not be taught in the science classroom or in the school.

    A4) The demonstration was about not teaching a false view of scientific theory and claiming that evolution leads to immorality. Also the battleship slide suggesting that gay marriage was wrong and that only a literal belief in Genesis was the true way and that all other faiths were wrong. Yes Ken Ham did seem to suggest that my liberty would be very different should he and his followers ever have power.

    A5) My point was that we had a sense of morality that we could rationalize for ourselves. We know pedophilia to be wrong without the bible spelling it out to us. You see my view of morality and value is different from yours because it has an original source source other than God’s will. Anyone coming up with such codes must have a reason for them and as rational beings we can understand that, and discuss them.

    To believe that morality only exists by God does not remove the way by which such issued commands are to be considered moral. I do not see the need for a God to justify morality.

    A6) The context is that they were a part of the times, and not an unchangeable set of truths that should never be questioned or scrutinized. Thankfully people have, and the cherry picking has led to improvements in human thought and human freedoms.

    I do not say that Christians are dangerous. But to suggest that a scientific theory leads to racism or immoral conduct, and that only a literal interpretation of the bible is true even though the evidence makes the claim for a few thousand year old earth an ignorant and false claim.

    The problem is when people will, because of their faith, impose god’s will on the rest of us and try to legitimize it in his name.

    With regards who is right do check out John Rawls. The answer to such differences of opinion could well be a “reflective equilibrium” and where we do differ that is just the way it goes but there are rights that we cannot violate in a well ordered and just society.

    Indeed but you did say “all laws in this land are founded on the bible”.

  8. Pennie

    I always find it fascinating when theists suggest they are unable to behave morally without God. It says much more about them than it does about anyone else!

    I think that most people would agree that the highest form of morality involves true integrity. That the person in question does the right thing even when they are not watched. The risk of discovery, or reward/punishment, is irrelevant because their integrity is more important to them than any other gain/loss.

    If someone has to be watched (by God, if no-one else is there), what does this say of their integrity and morality?

  9. Sossijj

    Gupter, with regard to your third point about schools, whilst AiG may claim to not want to see creationism taught in schools, did you know that Monty White was quoted in the Leicester Mercury in 2006 as saying the exact opposite? That’s a bit more than you claim AiG would like to see in the above post.

    Are you saying that he is the only person in the organisation who wants this? At the time he was the Chief Exec of the UK branch of AiG (he may still be – wikipedia says he is but it may be out of date).

    Must dash – I’ve just noticed a tyrannosaurus munching through the lettuces in my garden with his big, sharp carnivore teeth. Shoo, you big pesky lizard!

  10. Pennie

    If AiG is not trying to get creationism taught in schools, why would they do this…?

    “Each year, Answers in Genesis provides materials and people for a booth at the National Educators Association annual convention.”

    Taken from AiG website to minutes ago. So was this:

    School Curricula
    The Fallacy Detective
    God’s Design Science Curriculum
    God’s Design for Chemistry (2 books)
    God’s Design for the Physical World (3 books)
    God’s Design for Heaven and Earth (3 books)
    God’s Design for Life (3 books)
    History Revealed Curriculum
    Ancient Civilizations and the Bible
    Romans, Reformers, Revolutionaries
    Intermediate Logic
    Introductory Logic
    A Faith to Grow On
    Answers Education Online
    Answers for Kids Series
    Adams’ Chart of History
    Beyond Numbers
    Body by Design
    Building Blocks in Life Science
    The Exploring Series
    Human Body: An Intelligent Design
    Pilgrim’s Progress All-In-One Curriculum
    Wonders of Creation Series

    Amazing to go to so much trouble, designing a school curriculum, when there is no intention to teach it in school.

  11. Pennie

    I saw a letter the other day. I don’t know who wrote it but it went something like this:

    “What did the following despots have in common?

    Mugabe, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler (there were another six or seven)

    Answer: They all went to faith schools.

    Are faith schools such a good idea?”

  12. Pennie

    Just spotted “Introductory Logic” in the school curricula list above Hahahahahaha!!!

    What is the difference between “Introductory Logic” and “Intermediate Logic”?

  13. Sossijj

    If AiG really do want logic as part of their school curriculum we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, as you’re well aware Pennie, it won’t be logic as most people know it. Where AiG use the word “logic”, you could substitute it for the the phrase “God did it”.

    Expelled: No Logic Allowed – I think that would make a great title for a film. What do you think?

  14. Pennie

    Sossijj

    I don’t think I would be laughing if I thought their idea of logic bore any relationship to what I think of as logic (see Robert Byers on RD.net and elsewhere!) I would welcome the inclusion of it in their curriculum. That is why I laughed – “Creationist Introductory Logic” – God did it because the Bible says so. “Creationist Intermediate Logic” – God did it because I say so AND the Bible says so”.

  15. Pennie

    Also, I like the proposed title of the film – it will be better than the current one: “Expelled: No intelligence allowed – Alright officer, I’ll come quietly!”

  16. Gupter

    Hi homoeconomicusnet

    Would you do me a big favour and ring me during office hours on 0116 2708400? I have a proposal that may or may not interest you. My name is Gary.

    Thanks Mate

  17. Pingback: Libby Purves on Dawkins « Homo economicus’ Weblog

  18. Pingback: A Guide To Debating Creationists by Richard Dawkins | Homo economicus' Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s