I need a bit of help (a link or something)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Nah, you're right there: I give Safarti zero credit for being anything other than a drone for the god squad. I didn't make it through Mein Kampf, either, as the narrator was just too unlikable. I've seen Safarti come up as a name to be reckoned with, but only amongst creationists. The real scientific community doesn't take him very seriously at all, and why should they? He argues for a young earth among other ridiculous things.

---

The Hitler reference is irrelevant, a non-sequitur, not to mention absurd. Like I said earlier he was published in Nature when he was only 22, so he is taken seriously, maybe just not by people like you who have never even read his work.

---

As for writing in philosophy, if you are doing it as a historical analysis, I would agree with you that a degree in the field would be good, but let's not sidestep the Safarti ball, shall we? Safarti is challenging scientists on science, and there, his mad chess skills be damned, he is outclassed by those who refuse to dignify his palaver with a debate. Creationism is malarky, and anyone who adheres to it is too dimwitted to be bothered with.

---

Special pleading, you hold Sarfati to a higher standard than you do Dawkins. Dawkins even covers biochemical theories in his books and yet has no degree in Biochemistry.

“Yeah I don’t wrestle grizzly bears because they are just too week and I don’t want to give them credit!” is exactly how the “I don’t debate Creationists” excuse sounds to me.

---

Theology is a shit field filled with turds. It has very low academic standing. Religious studies is its modern-and more respectable progeny (a sign of evolution, if you will [but you won't]).

---

Dawkins has a degree in neither so my point still stands.