We've been having some fun over at "Sandwalk," the blog of U of T biochemistry professor Larry Moran, where we've been cleaning and filleting ID proponent Kirk Durston -- just check the most recent entries for the side-splitting entertainment.
But what surprises me is that, while Larry's linked to this interview with Durston at canadianchristianity.com, no one's picked up on the obvious logical howler contained therein, and I quote:
CC.com: You may recall that politician Stockwell Day was publically ridiculed some time ago for his belief in Creation. What do you think this says about Canadian society, mass media and the general public's view of origins?
K.D.: It says a lot about the secular media.
Whoa ... hold on there, pardner. Stockie wasn't just ridiculed for being a Christian or believing in Creation; he was ridiculed for stating that he believed in a strict, young-earth creationism and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
So it behooves us to ask Mr. Durston: Don't you think the secular media had every right to hold Stockie up to public ridicule for saying something like that? Or is Mr. Durston saying he agrees with Day?
Elsewhere, Durston appears to claim that he accepts the notion of an ancient earth and the occurrence of biological evolution. But if that's the case, what exactly is out of place with making fun of someone who espouses a belief in young-earth creationism?
Come on, Kirk, you can't have it both ways. You can't admit that you believe in an old earth, then turn around and take shots at the media for properly chastising someone as scientifically illiterate as Stockwell Day.
So how about it, Kirk? What exactly are you trying to say here? If you're going to say uncomplimentary things about the "secular media," it might help to know precisely what you think is their sin here.