The alternative which I favor is to renounce all euphemisms and grasp the nettle of the word atheism itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve than with some non-confrontational euphemism, but if we did achieve it with the dread word atheist, the political impact would be all the greater.

God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer.

I have a strong feeling that the subject of evolution is beautiful without the excuse of creationists needing to be bashed.

The chicken is only an egg’s way for making another egg.

I've never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!

We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes. Our common ancestor with the chimpanzees and gorillas is much more recent than their common ancestor with the Asian apes - the gibbons and orangutans. There is no natural category that includes chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans but excludes humans.

In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive.