Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Robyn Williams has written a book debunking Intelligent Design.
Tim Blair's reaction (endorsed by Glenn Reynolds): He doesn't see anything wrong with Intelligent Design, but why didn't Williams write a book on the flaws in Fundamentalist Islam?.
Similarly Blair thinks people shouldn't write about global warming, but should write about the threat from global terrorism instead. And you shouldn't write about the danger of obesity, but about the danger of Islamic extremism.
I think that if Blair had his way, this is what it would be like at breakfast:
"What's in the paper this morning?"
"Well, there's a story about the threat to our schools from Islamofascism, there's one about how fascist Islamists menace our water supply, then there is one on the danger to the rail system from fascist Islamofascists who are fascists, and one on the risks to the wheat harvest from fascist fascist fascist Islamofascistic fascists, and then one on the fascist fascist fascist fascist ..."
"Is there a story that isn't about Islamofascism?"
"Well, the story about the threat to our schools doesn't have much Islamofascism in it."
Comments
Interesting that Tim Blair tacitly admits that Intelligent Design is a religious dogma and not a science. Why else would he suggest swapping it with a critique of Islam?
Posted by: coby | August 28, 2006 2:09 PM
And the sport results: All Blacks defeat Wallabies but refuse to take on Islamofascism. Federer in straight sets over Roddick but Islamofascists remain in the draw. Crows grab narrow win over Collingwood but at a cost: injuries to McLeod and Burton but not insurgents in Iraq.
Entertainment: Meatloaf rereleases single: I'll do anything for love, but I won't take on the Islamofascists.
Actually, Blair is careful not to explicitly support AGW, ID or creationism. His commenters for the most part are not quite so restrained. Makes for amusing, if slightly cringeworthy, reading ...
Posted by: hd | August 28, 2006 2:25 PM
Blair is careful not to explicitly support AGW, ID or creationism
Ah. Apologies in advance to Mr Blair....
Posted by: coby | August 28, 2006 2:33 PM
How presumptuous of Williams to have chosen his own topic, rather than consulting Tim Blair first. What was he thinking?
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | August 28, 2006 2:37 PM
I wonder if Blair or Instapundit are aware that the ID people have a
islamofascistrandom Muslim dude who argues that rejecting evolution and supporting ID is a good way for us to get the terrorists to stop hating us?Imagine the fevered cries of "appeasment!" we'd here from those guys if it were in any other context.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | August 28, 2006 5:32 PM
coby, no apology needed. "tacitly" is pretty close to the mark. He doesn't condemn it. Given that he seems to be criticising Robyn Williams for failing to condemn Islamofascism, I think we can join the dots ... :-)
Posted by: hd | August 28, 2006 5:36 PM
This comment in Blair's site beautifully sums up the reasoning of little tim and his followers:
Posted by: Steve | August 28, 2006 5:43 PM
I reviewed Williams book for Larvatus Prodeo and Williams does have a go at fundamentalist Islam on more than one occasion. But as the chief peddlars of ID are fundamentalist Christians then deservedly the focus is on them and their politics.
Posted by: Shaun | August 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Mind you I did not hear him call for a book into the flaws into fundamental Christianity or Hinduism. I think the reason is is that they are all fundamentally flawed and who wants to shoot ducks in a barrel.
In all of this religion is used as an excuse to control people to do evil things. The problem is not the religion but the people behind it. It is not restricted to Islam. I guess this sort of reasoning is not black and white enough for Blair. For his blog/column and his commenters there are no shades of grey - I don't know if he can think complex however he posts these black and white opinions to get notariaty I guess???
Posted by: Ender | August 28, 2006 6:49 PM
As far as I know, nobody in Australia or the USA (or anywhere outside of a handful of muslim nations, and maybe not even there) is campaigning for fundamentalist Islam to be taught in SCIENCE CLASSES instead of religious studies.
Posted by: Steve II | August 28, 2006 11:34 PM
So why isn't tim Blair wiring abotu nun-beating?
He obviously approves of beating nuns.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 29, 2006 12:53 AM
And for extra added irony - most islamic fundamentalists are creationists.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 29, 2006 12:55 AM
What I wrote: "I'd sure like to read a 'short, wicked and witty' book by Robyn Williams exposing all the scientific flaws in fundamentalist Islam."
What TimL imagines I wrote: "Why didn't Williams write a book on the flaws in Fundamentalist Islam?"
Posted by: tim | August 29, 2006 1:04 AM
Personally, Tim B, I'd be delighted to read soemthing "short, wicked and witty" by you on any topic.
But alas, we all have our limitations.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 29, 2006 1:15 AM
Of course, as a rhetorical move this line ("Why condemn X when Y is as bad or worse?") is a standard way of defending the indefensible particularly indefensible political allies.
In relation to ID, it's becoming standard on the Australian right - Andrew Bolt has used it.
Posted by: John Quiggin | August 29, 2006 1:57 AM
Missed my last word - sentence should end "Andrew Bolt has used it too"
Posted by: John Quiggin | August 29, 2006 2:05 AM
Okay,Tim Blair...
Next time a federal education and science minister is briefed on anti-science dogma by a muslim group, declares he's impressed by their arguments and says he's not opposed to having muslim creationist claptrap taught alongside evolution in science classrooms, I'll agree with you and call on science writer Robyn Williams to write a book debunking muslim beliefs.
Posted by: pastor maker | August 29, 2006 2:54 AM
You're forgetting that Blair is simply a racist dog whistler, and Mark Steyn wannabe.
Posted by: Alex | August 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Permit me...
"What's in the paper this morning?"
"Well, there's a story about the threat to our schools from latté-sipping, inner-city leftist elitist Foucault-readers failing to stop Islamofascism, there's one about how latté-sipping, inner-city leftist elitist Foucault-readers don't understand that fascist Islamists are menacing our water supply, then there is one on latté-sipping, inner-city leftist elitist Foucault-readers not realizing the danger to the rail system from fascist Islamofascists who are fascists, and one on the risks to the wheat harvest from latté-sipping, inner-city leftist elitist Foucault-readers who are cozying up to fascist fascist fascist Islamofascistic fascists, and then one on the those latté-sipping, inner-city leftist elitist Foucault-readers lovers of fascist fascist fascist fascist ..."
Posted by: mark | August 29, 2006 4:51 AM
Personally, Tim B, I'd be delighted to read soemthing "short, wicked and witty" by you on any topic.
But alas, we all have our limitations.
You can't read?
Posted by: tim | August 29, 2006 5:24 AM
"Personally, Tim B, I'd be delighted to read soemthing "short, wicked and witty" by you on any topic.
But alas, we all have our limitations."
"You can't read?"
Oh, snap, Tim!
Slightly longer Tim Blair "short, wicked and witty" comeback:
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Posted by: pastor maker | August 29, 2006 5:58 AM
Actually that's probably the funniest I've ever known Tim B. to be (intentionally anyway).
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 29, 2006 6:24 AM
I wonder if Blair or Instapundit are aware that the ID people have a islamofascist random Muslim dude who argues that rejecting evolution and supporting ID is a good way for us to get the terrorists to stop hating us?
How is that working out? Has ICR's support of BAV made the US safer?
Posted by: Graculus | August 29, 2006 7:51 AM
Mr Blair needs to get with the program. The latest memo from that Canadian pillock on whom TimBo has a grotesque schoolgirl crush is as follows: people shouldn't write about global warming, but should write about the threat of Muslims breeding.
Posted by: RobW | August 29, 2006 9:56 AM
"I'd sure like to read a 'short, wicked and witty' book by Robyn Williams exposing all the scientific flaws in fundamentalist Islam."
So would I. So what?
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 29, 2006 10:13 AM
I'd like to see Chuck Palahniuk write an episode of "Battlestar Galactica".
Maybe Tim Blair can start a petition or something...
Posted by: pastor maker | August 29, 2006 11:33 AM
From the article cited by RobW
Mark Steyn "if you go to a maternity ward in Lyon you'll see that about half the babies being born in that ward are in fact Muslim."
Ah yes, "muslim" is such a nice euphemism for "brown".
Or maybe Mark thinks islam is a genetic disorder like, say, sickle cell anemia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 29, 2006 12:18 PM
Well of course a book exposing the nonsense of Intelligent Design will necessarily focus primarily on Christian fundamentalism since this is currently where most ID supporters come from.
That said, Islamic Creationism is also a growing problem here in the UK (see: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html ) and I have a nasty feeling that it's going to get worse. We should not pull any punches when it comes to defending rational inquiry against attacks from any quarter.
Posted by: Tony Jackson | August 29, 2006 1:58 PM
Well, Tony,
You write the book about stupid islamic beliefs! Here in Australia the threat comes overwhelmingly from fundie christian probots who have infiltrated the federal government, so it kind of makes sense for an Australian-based science writer, whose main market is Australia, to write a book about fundie christian beliefs.
Posted by: pastor maker | August 29, 2006 5:39 PM
What I wrote: "I'd sure like to read a 'short, wicked and witty' book by Robyn Williams exposing all the scientific flaws in fundamentalist Islam."
What TimL imagines I wrote: "Why didn't Williams write a book on the flaws in Fundamentalist Islam?"
Funnily enough PJ, that's the way your post (as a whole) comes across. What were you really trying to say?
Posted by: zoot | August 29, 2006 10:59 PM
"Here in Australia the threat comes overwhelmingly from fundie christian probots who have infiltrated the federal government, so it kind of makes sense for an Australian-based science writer, whose main market is Australia, to write a book about fundie christian beliefs."
er yes, isn't that what I said? eg:
"Well of course a book exposing the nonsense of Intelligent Design will necessarily focus primarily on Christian fundamentalism since this is currently where most ID supporters come from."
My point was a modest, but I think important one. The enemies of rational thought are not just on the Christian right.
Posted by: Tony Jackson | August 30, 2006 4:13 AM
Tony,
comparing the threat of christian fundamentalism to science education in australia to the threat of islamic fundamentalism to science education in australia is like comparing the threat of vehicle collisions with kangaroos to vehicle collisions with dragonflies.
Last time I checked, no australian state puts up road signs warning drivers of dragonflies. Why? Because the threat really ain't there. Muslim fundamentalists just don't have any pull with governments.
Posted by: pastor maker | August 31, 2006 3:56 AM
PM: Maybe you should count your blessings because you only seem to have one set of loonies to worry about! Here in the UK it's more complex. We do have fundamentalist Christians and they certainly cause mischief, but they don't seem to be as well organised politically as their brothers and sisters in the USA or Australia. Here we also have creationists from other religions too and don't get me started on weird creationst apologists on the left eg like Steve Fuller:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=30&subject=Steve%20Fuller
Some of these people are running University departments!
Posted by: Tony Jackson | August 31, 2006 5:23 AM
Kudos for the little Python homage, Tim L.
Posted by: fatfingers | August 31, 2006 12:50 PM
"He doesn't see anything wrong with Intelligent Design"
Neither do I. It's a perfectly logical, and elegant theory to explain the creation of the universe.
Posted by: Dave Surls | September 1, 2006 4:14 PM