Jerry Coyne blogged<\/a> about Genesis 3D, and had these insightful words to share:<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a science-y world we live in, and you don\u2019t have to be a genius to see that. If your church is anti-science, you don\u2019t only look anti-modern, you look stupid. \u00a0But since some modern science (particularly evolution) violates the tenets of evangelical Christianity, they have to pretend that their creationists myths are actually supported by science. I\u2019d claim that creationist propaganda is more than just getting creationism taught in the schools; it\u2019s\u00a0getting creationism to look scientific and therefore more credible.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not sure how that fits with his earlier post<\/a> about the phenomenon of science dismissal. But it does seem that both are on target \u2013 often the attempt to co-opt the authority of science goes hand in hand with the dismissal of what mainstream science concludes.<\/p>\n Commenter Patrick said on this blog recently<\/a> about the supporters of Intelligent Design, \u201c\u201dno one wants ID well-defined enough to be proven, for then it could be disproved.\u201d<\/p>\n Caroline Blyth<\/a> takes Genesis seriously as a literary work by ancient authors, and concludes, \u201cGenesis is a book that I think explores the human condition in all its fullness and frailty; in particular, its ancient authors seem at pains to articulate the complex and at times incomprehensible relationship that exists \u00a0between humanity and the divine. In my opinion, they do this incredibly well.\u201d<\/p>\n Gavin at Otagosh<\/a> takes Blyth\u2019s comparison of Genesis to a racy soap opera as his starting point, and concludes by asking, \u201cCan Genesis be prised from the clammy hands of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and their ilk, or has the battle already been well and truly lost?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Hemant Mehta<\/a> offered 11 tips for Bill Nye. Pete Enns<\/a> also had things to say about the upcoming debate with Ken Ham.<\/p>\n