I've been reading an Alabama newspaper that one man shot another man because he beat him in a Bible-quoting competition.

Time and again, my sociobiological colleagues have upbraided me as a turncoat, because I will not agree with them that the ultimate criterion for the success of a meme must be its contribution to Darwinian "fitness". At bottom, they insist, a "good meme" spreads because brains are receptive to it, and the receptiveness of brains is ultimately shaped by (genetic) natural selection.

The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist.

As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbrit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors.

The whole of technology depends on a scientific background, and of course technology can be used for evil purposes. You can't blame science for that.

Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime.