³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This has been a big year for so many people across many fields, but in the field of religion, ethics and ideas, this is one man's year. Like him or loathe him, people are talking about him and his ideas. We recognise the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, as our Person of the Year 2006. This year also marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of his book The Selfish Gene. To some he's "Darwin's rottweiller" (echoing TH Huxley's nickname, "Darwin's bulldog"); to others he's "A Devil's Chaplain" (Darwin's phrase, now the title of one of Dawkins's books). You have voted overwhelmingly for Dawkins, and for many conflicting reasons:

For being everywhere this year, with the publication of his global bestseller, The God Delusion.
For proving that scientists can still change the way people think.
For writing a book (The God Delusion) which enabled Terry Eagleton to write the ever published.
For thinking clearly in a world that doesn't much value clear thinking anymore.
For saying what he thinks.
For defending the delusion that science and religious faith are incompatible.
For creating the Richard Dawkins for Reason & Science.
For writing the most overrated book of the year (in the judgment of magazine).
For making people talk about the dangers of religious fundamentalism.
For lobbying atheism and humanism into the headlines more than anyone else has done before.
For being the face of science on television across the western world.
For not having been given an honour by the Queen, while being a recipient of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic and many scientific and literary prizes.
For marrying the who played Romana in Doctor Who.
For raising questions that need to be answered by any intelligent religious believer wishing to develop a coherent worldview.
For being a scientific fundamentalist and the worst advert for atheism currently doing a book tour.
For raising a debate about the nature of "science" and how future generations of schoolchildren should be pretected from "pseudo-science".
For being rude and getting away with it.

For these, and many other reasons, Richard Dawkins is our Person of the Year 2006.

Professor Andy McIntosh's contribution to Sunday Sequence's recent Creation Wars special has provoked enormous debate here and in the national press, including a letter to the Guardian from Richard Dawkins. Andy McIntosh has written the following clarification and defence of his position for this blog.

Now that the 2nd law has had time to work on the Turkey this Christmas . . . maybe a few words are in order on thermodynamics and living machinery which I spoke about on the Sunday Sequence program on Dec 10th. I don't usually enter lots of blog discussions, but I see that you are having quite a debate here, so perhaps a word is in order from me. I do not on principle enter into any ad hominem attacks or respond to such against me. They do not add weight to any arguments and it is the science which is important.

The reason of course why this subject of origins will not go away is that there is a scientific case, whether Dawkins likes it or not, which is a challenge to the neo-Darwinian attempts to explain life in terms of common descent. It is a straightforward case of testable science versus the modern evolutionary ‘just-so’ story telling. Scientists like myself who believe in Creation have no problem with natural selection. It is simply the natural equivalent of artificial selection. But natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form).

The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. This was the point at issue in the programme of Dec 10th. Intelligence is needed.

And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this.

I suggest that all the listeners read again if they have not done already, the excellent book by Wilder Smith called 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution'. It is available on Amazon.

As I receive much correspondence, I will not be able to enter into extended discussions either here or privately.

Professor A.C. McIntosh
Truth in Science

The people of Iraq woke up this morning to the news that Saddam Hussein was at dawn local time, about 3 am GMT. His hanging was filmed and we can expect those images to soon be available across the world courtesy of the internet.

Legal historians will no doubt debate the fairness of the trial Saddam received. Perhaps they will ask why his execution was scheduled on this of all days -- just an hour before the commencement of the festival of Eid al-Adha, one of the holiest days of the Islamic calendar. Why not a week from now, after that festival?

Some political commentators are already arguing that this action by the Iraqi government is a demonstration of their independence and their wilingness to move forward -- to end Iraq's long national nightmare (if I may misquote the late Gerald Ford). They say we should remember the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were sent to their graves during Saddam's 24 year reign. Others will ask if this judicial killing will not lead to yet more killing in Iraq and elsewhere. To date, the US has lost about 3,000 troops in Iraq, and suffered some 25,000 casualities. Will Saddam's execution quicken up the stabilization of Iraq or trigger retaliations and increased insurgency? Wasn't this execution, in any case, a calculated vote-winner for Iraqi's majority Shiite government -- and wasn't that, rather than "justice", the point of the exercise?

And yet, who would argue that Iraq would be a safer place if Saddam had been sentenced to imprisonment for life rather than death? Wouldn't he have been a constant focus for extremists? Could an Iraqi force even have secured his imprisonment against attempts by his followers to set him free?

Those questions await answers. And these too -- the key questions: Has justice been done? And is the world a safer place today than yesterday?

The Iraqi government has confirmed that the of Saddam Hussein will be filmed.

Saddam's defence team expect the execution to take place tomorrow. Saddam has already released his through his lawyers. Apparently the Iraqi authorities are anxious that the execution should take place before the beginning of the Islamic festival of Eid -- which happens to fall on new year's eve (the first time it's coincided with new year festivities for 26 years).

I can't help recalling the West Wing episode, "", in which Leo discovers a bizarre fact of American political life: the Federal government doesn't carry out executions on the Sabbath.

Add your nominations here for our "person of the year" title - the man, woman or child who has most inspired us, challenged us, impressed, infuriated, or simply pre-occupied us in the past twelve months. The person, in short, who will be forever associated with this year. Who gets your nomination? Will it be a politician, a scientist, a religious leader, an entertainer, a military leader, a human rights campaigner, or an idea whose time has come? I'm accepting nominations for my blog's Person of the Year 2006 award. I'll announce the winner on December 31st.

So far, you've nominated: Richard Dawkins, Ian Paisley, Al Gore, Blogging, Tim Berners Lee, Gerry Adams, Robin Eames, Norman Kember, Anna Politkovskaya, Pope Benedict, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Atheism, Andy McIntosh, and George W Bush. One one female nomination so far, and quite a few already for Richard Dawkins.

The death of continues to overshadow Pope Benedict's Christmas. A breathing tube had kept the 60-year-old alive for nine years. Mr Welby died a week ago, after his doctor agreed to sedate him and remove the tube. Some commentators describe this action as "euthanasia" -- in fact, Dr Mario Riccio says he merely complied with his patient's legal right to refuse treatment. But the Vatican has argued that Mr Welby's action was tantamount to suicide and has refused his family the use of a church for a Christian burial.

On Sunday, hundreds stood in a public square outside the Welby's family church for the "lay funeral" -- not only to stand alongside the family in their time of grief, but also to stand against what many commentators in Italy regard as a cruel decision by the church. For its part, the Vatican says a church funeral could be interpreted as giving approval to Mr Welby's decision to refuse treatment. The courts legal status of Dr Riccio's intervention.

Had he lived, Piergiorgio Welby would have marked his 61st birthday today.

Add your nominations here for our "person of the year" title - the man, woman or child who has most inspired us, challenged us, impressed, infuriated, or simply pre-occupied us in the past twelve months. The person, in short, who will be forever associated with this year. Who gets your nomination? Will it be a politician, a scientist, a religious leader, an entertainer, a military leader, a human rights campaigner, or an idea whose time has come? I'm accepting nominations for my blog's Person of the Year 2006 award. I'll announce the winner on December 31st.

So far, you've nminated: Richard Dawkins, Ian Paisley, Al Gore, Blogging, Tim Berners Lee, Gerry Adams, Robin Eames, Norman Kember, Anna Politkovskaya, Pope Benedict, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, Atheism, Andy McIntosh, and George W Bush. One one female nomination so far, and quite a few already for Richard Dawkins.

Murphy's 2nd Law of Journalism: Whatever the story, there's an Irishman involved somewhere. So we shouldn't have been surprised to find that one of the churches in Virginia to have the American Epicopal Church this month has a Northern Irishman as rector.

Read the rest of this entry

That's what they call it in the United States: the "war on Christmas" is, according to some, a "strategy" to remove all references to Christmas throughout society. Cards avoiding the C-word, in favour of "Season's Greetings". A re-designation of the season as "Winter Festival". The avoidance of nativity and other biblical imagery in favour of secular images, such as Santa. Etc, etc.

Callers to some of our Radio Ulster programmes have been making the same complaints for a few weeks. I confess that I can't get particularly excited about this debate. I say "Happy Hanukkah" to Jewish friends, and they have no apparent difficulty in replying, "Happy Christmas". (A plug: We'll be talking more about the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which ends today, on tomorrow's Sunday Sequence.) Back in September, I wished a Muslim friend "Ramadan Mubarak". And in October, I wished a Hindu friend a "Happy Diwali".

Presumably, critics of Christmas are concerned that people of other faiths (or none) might be offended by references to the Christian festival on government greetings cards and the like. Why anyone would feel upset about being wished "Happy Christmas" is a mystery to me; and I've yet to meet anyone who has been thus offended. Nor, for that matter, can I understand why anyone would wish to compel others to use Christian imagery and language against their will.

Anyway ... Since we're talking about the need for more common sense in public debates about morality and culture, I recommend Brian Walden's typically insightful "", which I happened to hear broadcast on Friday night on Radio 4.

Happy Hanukkah.

Should churches be concerned about the headine story in revealing the results of a poll suggesting that 82 per cent of the British population believe religion causes more harm than good in the world? Some will regard this as a pretty negative eve of Christmas eve story from the Guardian -- and the accompanying leader article makes an argument for yet more secularisation of public life in Britain.

Read the rest of this entry

Or, more accurately, quizzing about morality, I suppose. This is a victory for common sense. Helen and Joe Roberts have received £10,000 in compensation after they mishandled into comments made by the couple in a telephone conversation with a representative of Wyre Borough Council.

Read the rest of this entry

The historian and Holocaust denier David Irving , after being released from an Austrian prison. He served 13 months of a three-year sentence and has been banned from returning to Austria. Irving maintains that his views are based on a close reading of historical documents; he accepts the existence of Nazi death camps, but argues that their role has been overstated by subsequent historians. He also argues that a free society should permit him to raise questions and state conclusions which others find offensive or unpalatable.

Austria is one of a number of countries to have enacted laws criminalising actions which deny, approve of, or grossly understate the attempted genocide pertetrated by the Nazis. Other countries include Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

What are the limits of free speech? Even some of Irving's most severe critics regard his imprisonment as ludicrous. Surely the best way to challenge holocaust denial, in all its forms, is to debate it in the clear light of day? The historian Deborah Lipstadt has made a study of holocaust denial. You will remember that Deborah Lipstadt named Irving as a holocaust denier in her 1994 book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. In fact, she said Irving is "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". In 1998, Irving sued Lipstadt. Mr Justice Gray ruled in her favour, and sustained her description of Irving as a holocaust denier. His judgement, which you can read in full , is a fascinating survey of the historical evidence for the holocaust and a sustained indictment of efforts to deny that this genocide took place.

Deborah Lipstadt will be my guest on Sunday morning. I'll ask her if imprisonment is an acceptable response by a democracy to commentators and historians like David Irving.

More correspondence concerning Andy McIntosh in the page of , including a letter from his colleague Stuart Burgess. Dr Burgess is also a member of . I interviewed him in Belfast while he was visiting to talk about his book .

Read the rest of this entry

Needless to say, we have been in touch with Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds University to see if he wishes to comment on Richard Dawkins' letter in the Guardian about his comments on our Creation Wars special. I'd hoped to ask Dr McIntosh for his reaction to that letter, and also to try to spell out more clearly where exactly he stands on the second law of thermodynamics.

Professor Dawkins is astonished that a professor of thermodynamics could seriously contend that the second law of thermodynamics conflicts with the theory of evolution -- and has, in effect, suggested that Leed University should carefuly consider whether it is appropriate that someone taking that view should be one of their salaried professors. Andy McIntosh has replied to our invitation, and has decided not to take part in a follow-up radio interview. This is unfortunate, I think, since there are important (if rather esoteric) issues at stake here.

One can of course understand why Professor McIntosh would think twice about re-entering the fray on this occasion, since the professional stakes are high for him and the University of Leeds.

News just in. Mr Justice Deeny has ruled that Northern Ireland's new gay rights legislation should be introduced, as planned, on New Year's Day. The Christian Institute and a number of other Christian groups asked the High Court to make an order postponing the introduction of the Regulations pending a judicial review.

Their barrister, David Scoffield, said that in England and Wales the government had delayed the implementation of equivalent legislation and added: "In view of that, it is very difficult for the governmenbt to argue there is a pressing need for this legislation in this jurisdiction at this time." Today, Mr Justice Deeny refused to postpone the introduction of the regulations, and fixed March 1 and 2 as dates for a full hearing.

Jenni Murray and Women's Hour are together a national institution. She is a giant of broadcasting. On today's programme, that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and will undergo treatment in the new year. The prognosis is excellent -- and that's a tribute to the enormous hard work of researchers and clinicians over the past few decades. Women's Hour is really Jenni's hour; and I am one of many male listeners and fans of the programme. Have a happy Christmas, Jenni.

A reminder that Christmas is an annual excuse for unrelenting tackiness. Enjoy.

A follow-up to Prospect magazine's list of the most overrated and most underrated books of 2006. I've already interviewed the author of their most overrated book, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). For completion, we've arranged an interview with the author of their most underrated book of the year. On January 7th, Jeremy Stangroom, co-author with Ophelia Benson of will be my guest on Sunday Sequence. That'll give you a couple of weeks to read a book that's being described as an antidote to postmodern nonsense.

Mr Justice Deeny will hear arguments tomorrow on the judicial review, in respect of the new goods, facilities and services regulations, brought by seven Christian organisations, including The Christian Institute and the Caleb Foundation. The four main churches are not part of that legal challenge, but the four church leaders met yesterday with the Northern Ireland minister David Hanson to raise their own concerns. The church leaders' delegation comprised the Presbyterian Moderator, Dr David Clarke, the Methodist President, Rev Ivan McElhinney, Bishop Alan Harper and Fr Tim Bartlett. The meeting is described by their press liaison, Stephen Lynas, as "open and frank". They issued the following statement earlier today.

Read the rest of this entry

This letter, from Professor Richard Dawkins, which refers to our recent Creation Wars special on Sunday Sequence, was published in yesterday's Guardian:

An organisation calling itself Truth in Science has recently used its (evidently large) financial resources to distribute DVDs promoting "intelligent design" to all schools (Report, December 7). The leading scientist behind Truth in Science is Andrew McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics at Leeds University. He has repeatedly said the world is only 6,000 years old. Given that all the scientific evidence points to approximately 4.6bn years as the true age of Earth, the scale of his error is remarkable.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the university has issued an official disclaimer: "Professor Andrew McIntosh's directorship of Truth in Science, and his promotion of that organisation's views, are unconnected to his teaching or research [here]. . . The university wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design, which cannot be verified by evidence."

However, the claim that McIntosh's eccentric view of reality is unconnected with his teaching or research as a professor of thermodynamics would appear to be cast into some doubt by a conversation that I recently had with him on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Belfast's Sunday Sequence. McIntosh publicly stated that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics.

In the light of this clear connection between McIntosh's creationist views and his understanding of thermodynamics, Leeds University will presumably need to revise its press release.

Richard Dawkins
University of Oxford

Bishop Tom Butler presented Thought for the Day on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, and was interviewed, moments earlier, by John Humphries. The answers he gives in the interview are curious: a series of non-denial denials and quite evasive responses. Were you drunk? Well, it would have been very out of character for me to be drunk. To which an interviewer might reply: Well, maybe so -- but were you drunk? As for the memory loss, the bishop says he is now having tests for amnesia and trying to work out what happened on that strange evening.

If this is a media strategy, it's badly-advised. Of course, it's possible that the bishop's account is true -- in which case, he must be challenging the veracity of the eye-witnesses to his antics with the toys in the back of an unlocked car. But, if he did have too much to drink at an Irish Embassy party -- and who hasn't? -- he'd have done himself more justice today by saying, "I made a mistake, and I'm sorry." I think the public would have smiled and said, "Fair enough, nobody's perfect." Instead, we now have a continuing mystery that is beginning to take on features akin to a JFK assassination conspiracy.

Meanwhile, i predict that an English ale will be created in the bishop's honour. Butler's Brew: An unforgettable experience.

Michael Stone's lawyers are arguing that his attempted invasion of Parliament Buildings at Stormont was "a piece of ".

Seven Christian groups in Northern Ireland were this afternoon granted leave to of the new equality legislation, which becomes operation on 1 January 2007. This legislation will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services in Northern Ireland. The groups argue that the government's eight-week consultation was flawed: it took place during the summer, last year, and did not provide sufficient time to consider the proposed legislation.

The government provides an of those 373 individuals and groups who submitted written responses to the consultation on the new legislation, enabling the public to read individual submissions. The analysis of those submissions by the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister is published online . Mr Justice Deeny will hear the case on Thursday.

Is this the face of a serial killer? Tom Stephens, a 37-year-old supermarket assistant by police investigating the murder of five women in the Ipswich area. As I write, he is being questioned by detectives at an unnamed police station in Suffolk. Only time -- and the continuing investigation -- will tell if Tom Stephens is the man who killed Gemma Adams, Anneli Alderton, Tania Nicol, Paula Clennell and Annette Nicholls. Without prejudice to that investigation, we can only hope that an end is in sight for the families of those young women whose lives were taken from them.

I spoke with Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes on Sunday morning and she was adamant that the police need to do more to protect female sex workers. She says the police do not investigate reports of violence against prostitutes as carefully as they investigate other crimes -- the life of a prostititute, she maintains, is undervalued, and violent clients are left to abuse other women. Getting away with violence may encourage some clients to get even more violent.

412 detectives, uniformed officers and other staff were involved in this investigation -- drawn from 36 police forces. Cari Mitchell believes those resources would not have been necessary if more was done to protect these women in the first instance: through further legalisation of prostitution and also a more responsible response by the police to early reports of violent crimes. This is a serious debate for serious people. Whether or not Tom Stephens is eventually prosecuted, it's a debate we need to have.

They say he was as (bishop). Well, we might find out what really happened on the way home from the Irish Embassy's Christmas party when Bishop Tom Butler presents his next Thought for the Day on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio 4 tomorrow morning. Set your clocks!

magazine has a new twist on the annual "books of the year" feature. It asks a panel of culture vultures to list the year's most overrated and underrated books. The full list is .

Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion tops the poll for the Most Overrated Book of the Year. Why Truth Matters by is judged the Most Underrated Book of the Year.

Sunday is the third annual "End Violence Against Sex Workers Day". The murder of five women working as prostitutes in Suffolk is prompting a debate about how we protect sex workers in the United Kingdom. Is it time to further decriminalise this business -- by, for example, legalising brothels or introducing official "red light zones"?

At present in the UK, prostitution itself is not technically illegal, but the means of contracting business may be. Soliciting, kerb-crawling, and procuring or keeping a brothel are illegal. Compare this with , where brothels have been decriminalised and tolerance zones are in place. Supporters say the benefit of this strategy is that sex work can be licensed and regulated; health checks can be introduced; prostitutes can be protected from violent clients. On tomorrow's Sunday Sequence, we'll examine the case for further decriminalisation of prostitution. We'll be doing so -- I hardly need to tell you -- against the backdrop of one of the most complex criminal investigations in the UK's history. But it's worth noting that violent crime is a tragically common experience for sex workers across the world: in Vancouver, the trial continues of a man charged with the murder of 26 prostitutes; and not a week passes in the UK without a woman experiencing serious violence at the hand of a male client.

We need also to ask why women work in prostitution. For some, it is to feed a drug habit; for others, it is as a result of social deprivation; others, still, are dealing with mental illness, family-based abuse, or other forms of social exclusion. Few women enter this profession as a positive career choice. In seeking to deal with the abuse of women sex workers, let's also talk about how to give women healthy, safe and life-affirming alternatives to this extremely dangerous work.

Not all prostitutes are female, and not all clients are male. But in most reports of violence against a prostitute, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators. As a man, I find that a discomfiting fact. Men also fight most of the wars in the world, and men dominate our prison population to such a degree that we need to talk about it. What is the sinister connection between men and violence and how can it be challenged?

A couple of years ago, I visited in North Carolina, the site of the original Billy Graham training centre. I stood behind the lectern Dr Graham used in some of his most famous crusades, with his actual speaking notes in front of me. I also saw the site Billy Graham had chosen for his final resting place, just beside the little Cove church. We were told that many of the leaders of the Billy Graham Organisation had planned to be buried here too; they are lifelong friends and wanted to be buried together.

A bitter dispute within the Graham family has now threatened those plans. Dr Graham is 88 years old; he is living with Parkinson's disease, and is now completely blind. It seems that his son and heir, Dr Franklyn Graham, is unhappy with the original plans to bury his father at the Cove site. Instead, he has hired former Walt Disney developers and is constructing a giant mock barn and multi-media exhibition centre near Charlotte, North Carolina (he descibes the place as a "memorial library"). Complete with mechanical cow, the Charlotte development appears rather "tacky" to some of Dr Graham's supporters who are, understandably, concerned about honouring his remarkable legacy with an appropriately dignified memorial.

Dr Graham's wife, Ruth Bell Graham, wants to be buried with her husband in Cove. Now, the crime writer Patricia Cornwell, a close friend of Billy and Ruth Graham, in an effort to scuttle Franklyn's plans.

Billy Graham is Charlotte's most famous son, and it is right that North Carolina's capital should have a site honouring his memory (in addition to the highway already named after him). But you can have a Lincoln Memorial without a Lincoln actually buried within it. One can only hope that a resolution can be found within the Graham family so that Billy Graham's death will not be overshadowed by pettiness.

Last night's dinner for Lord Eames brought together about a dozen journalists from across Ireland with press officers and Eames staffers to pay tribute to the primate and Lady Eames (and thank him for providing so much "copy" over the years). In total, there were about twenty-four guests, gathered around the table in Queen's University's senior common room.

Alf McCreary of the Belfast Telegraph and Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times gave the keynote speeches, with Robin and Christine Eames reponding. It was an evening for laughter, friendship and the sharing of memories. Alf got a lot of ribbing for breaking the story of the Eames retirement -- and there's still some mystery surrounding that journalistic exclusive. Patsy recalled the Drumcree debacle, which the Archbishop has described as his "personal Calvary". At the time, patsy and his paper were deeply critical of Dr Eames's handling of the affair. Then came brief speeches from John Cooney of the Irish Independent, Paul Clarke of UTV, Jim Dougal -- ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Northern Ireland's former political editor, who has just finished a two-part UTV documentary about the archbishop, to be broadcast in the new year -- Joe Little of RTE, Martin O'Brien of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, Billy Kennedy of the News letter, myself, and others. many speakers spoke of Eames as a colossus in Irish cultural and religious life. We also heard from press officers and advisers, such as Fr Tim Bartlett, and some of the archbishop's close colleagues. The speeches were all personal, often funny, and warmly affectionate. After the food, wine and speeches, Patsy McGarry presented Lord Eames with a cartoon recalling some of his most challenging moments as an international Anglican leader -- Drumcree and the Windsor Report. And yes, I can confirm that no episcopal figures were found afterwards in the back seats of strange cars.

I'll be recording a long-format interview with Lord Eames next week, for broadcast early in the new year, marking the close of his primacy.

I haven't written anything yet today, though I see that the conversations are continuing on other posts. I've been filming another sequence in a TV documentary that should air in February. Which raises a technical issue for my blog; because I've been on the road filming quite a bit lately, and I'd like to be able to blog fro my mobile phone -- and even attach a picture from a shoot. We're still working out how best to facilitate a texted post, but I expect it'll be sorted in the new year. Then I can hassle you round the clock.

Dashing again now. My colleague Alf McCreary of the Belfast Telegraph has organised a special journalists dinner tonight for Lord Eames. Alf, you may know, is Dr Eames's official biographer. This will be an opportunity for about a dozen of us media types to have a bash to mark Lord Eames's retirement. All conversations will be off the record, of course; but if the archbishop breaks into any cars and tosses toys from the back windows, you'll be the first to hear about it.

By the way, Tom Butler, who's still the Bishop of Southwark, will present his next Radio 4 Thought for the Day next Tuesday, 19 December. I'm hoping he will end his peice with, "I'm the Bishop of Southward; this is what I do. Good morning."

During last Sunday's Creation Wars special, I asked Richard Dawkins if his antagonistic style of debate is sometimes unhelpful. He accepted this criticism and said that's why he often refers people to the work of Ken Miller, a distinguished professor of biology at Brown University and a committed Christian. In addition to writing prolifically on cell biology, Ken Miller has written many of the biology textbooks used in American high school science classrooms, and is the author of . He is also, as you will see from this lecture, an accomplished public speaker. In this address at an American university, Miller explores intelligent design theory and evolutionary biology.

This is a dreadful story. A Presbyterian minister in Pittsburgh has , and has left a final letter to his congregation explaining why. The Reverend Brent Dugan, 60, was found dead in November. It appears that KDKA, a local television channel, was about to broadcast an "expose" of the pastor's sex life, and Mr Dugan discovered this by watching a trail on television. In desperation, to his church then committed suicide. The letter was read to his this week.

One can only hope that some questions are asked about in Pittsburgh, and about the kind of religious culture that leaves a man like Brent Dugan feeling so isolated.

On Monday morning, the Transitional Assembly debated The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, which come into effect on Jan 1, 2007, and will outlaw discrimination in goods and services on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. Jeffrey Donaldson's motion was as follows:

That this Assembly notes that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 have been laid in Westminster in advance of the equivalent regulations for the rest of the United Kingdom and calls upon the Government to withdraw these regulations and leave this issue to be determined by the Northern Ireland Assembly upon restoration.

When the Assembly voted, it was divided equally (39-39) and the motion was not carried. The official record of the debate is ; and the following are the names of those who voted and how they voted:

Ayes
Billy Armstrong, Norah Beare, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Thomas Buchanan, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Leslie Cree, George Dawson, Diane Dodds, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, Reg Empey, George Ennis, Arlene Foster, Samuel Gardiner, Paul Girvan, William Hay, David Hilditch, Danny Kennedy, Nelson McCausland, William McCrea, David McNarry, Stephen Moutray, Dermot Nesbitt, Robin Newton, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, George Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Simpson, Mervyn Storey, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

Noes
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Dominic Bradley, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Willie Clarke, John Dallat, Pat Doherty, David Ervine, Sean Farren, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Davy Hyland, Dolores Kelly, Gerry Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Naomi Long, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Fra McCann, Kieran McCarthy, Raymond McCartney, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Philip McGuigan, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, John O’Dowd, Pat O’Rawe, Tom O’Reilly, Pat Ramsey, Sue Ramsey, Margaret Ritchie, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton. Vote on vacancy in Membership [Michael Ferguson (deceased)]: Gerry Adams.

You'll notice that Paul Berry voted in support of Jeffrey Donaldson's motion. The voting is mostly along unionist-nationalist lines; David Ervine of the PUP voted against the motion and made a speech in favour of the new regulations; and Alliance members also voted against the motion, with their leader, David Ford, also speaking in the debate.

Thanks to Helen-ann Hartley for blog-sitting for me yesterday. From the response to her post, I can tell that she really got some of you going. I'm just back from London. It was a pretty busy day. The venue for the interviews I was conducting (apparently that's the correct term, even though I avoided waving my arms around) was a terrific exhibition space in Whitechapel Art Gallery (which will look wonderful on TV), and my guests were the broadcaster Melvyn Bragg and Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies (the right-wing think-tank founded some years ago by Margaret Thatcher).

In the morning, I talked to Melvyn about culture, class and television: he spoke very personally about his upbringing in Cumbria, his continuing struggles with depression, and his passionate commitment to challenge the distinction between "high culture" and "popular culture". He arrived in very dapper clothes, was extremely good company, and the interview felt more like a conversation (which is a very good thing, too).

After lunch round the corner in Brick Lane, I interviewed Ruth Lea, who proved to be terrifically feisty and (refreshingly) politically incorrect. She says exactly what she thinks and doesn't really mind how others react to her views. I pressed her "denial" of the global climate change crisis, her case for the UK's exit from membership of the European Union, whether Britain should do more to end poverty across the world, whether family life is in terminal decline, and a lot more. She clearly loves a good knockabout debate about issues that matter.

Helen-ann mentions the story of Bishop Tom Butler. This is all the talk in London -- in cabs, cafes, and airports. It's hard not to smile at the press acounts -- ok, it's impossible not to laugh out loud at the description of the inebriated prelate tossing children's toys from the back seat of a stranger's car -- but now some are calling for him to stand down. It's plainly an embarrassing episode for a bishop with a reputation for serious reflectiveness; but is this really a resigning matter? A few drinks too many at a Christmas party? The Labour MP Chris Bryant (a former Anglican vicar) has authored a full-page defence of the bishop in today's Evening Standard, arguing that the bishop should receive seasonal mercy. I suspect Bishop Butler will be under significant pressure to quit his diocese in the next few days. Meanwhile, I imagine quite a few people will be trying to get invitations to next year's Irish Embassy Christmas party.

The guest blogger today is the Oxford biblical scholar Dr Helenann Hartley.

Do angels sneeze?...was a question that came to mind last Friday as I attended my first nativity play of the season. The local pre-school put on a fine show, complete with sneezing angels, a wise man who refused to participate and a sheep that seemed totally overwhelmed by the enormity of his role that he stood, stunned, blocking the view of the crib. It's that time of year again.

What I find fascinating is the way the Biblical story is presented (or should that be re-presented?); scholarly exegetes would reel in horror no doubt, particularly at the presence of cats, dogs and a squid (yes, a squid) in the stable. But truth be told, this is how the story is told and retold. Most aren't aware anyway that Matthew and Luke describe Jesus' birth in different ways, Mark doesn't bother, and John chooses a more theological angle.

Christmas in Oxford is alive and well (not too much of the secular drive here), in fact, if you are part of the University, it's been and gone. I attended two College carol services during the last week of November and so have had a healthy dose of 'hark the Herald Angels Sing' already, oh, and two Christmas dinners too!

Before I was ordained priest, the bishop gave us all a firm warning about not getting into trouble. I wonder what he might say to the Bishop of Southwark about whom a rather curious story has emerged ('The , Monday's Guardian; and , ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ news website)? Anyway, at least here in Oxford we finally know who our new diocesan bishop is (successor to Richard Harries) after weeks of speculation and rumours it's - John Pritchard, currently bishop of Jarrow.

Now, about those angels...

It's hard to know what the result was. , from the creationist group proved to be more evasive in our interview than I'd expected. At times, it seemed like he didn't want to any answer questions directly, if at all. Then launched a pretty personal attack on his credibility by saying -- essentially -- that it was a disgrace that a great British university should employ as a professor someone with Andy McIntosh's views. McIntosh is professor of chemical engineering at Leeds University's school of engineering and technology, so one would expect that his personal views on evolutionary biology never make an appearance in his teaching.

But at one point Dawkins challenged him on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and McIntosh appeared to argue that the Second Law ("The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium") contradicts evolution. Some creationists have been arguing this for years, but -- Dawkins exclaimed -- here was a professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory now making the claim. Some members of the audience came to McIntosh's defence -- not so much to defend his views as to express impatience with Dawkins for personalising the debate. In Dawkins's defence, I suppose, it's fair to point out that his name was regularly invoked as a bogeyman by commentators before he even had a chance to speak in the debate. To say the least, there was a lot of rhetorical blood on the carpet by the end of the programme.

A couple of other contributions are worth noting. First, -- a very clever sociologist of knowledge from Warwick University -- entered the debate to make an argument for teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, even though he is a "secular humanist" (his preferred term over "atheist") and actually disputes ID theory. His argument is that science is a contested business and, throughout history, there has always been space for religious ideas in the teaching of science. Then came , a biblical scholar from Belfast Bible College, who argued that creationists are mis-reading the Bible -- a document which, in fact, does not even address questions of science as we know it. Thus, we had a humanist defending creationism in the schools, and an evangelical theologican arguing that creationism is bad theology. All of which serves to illustrate how unpredictable this debate can get. What did you make of it?

You can listen again to the Creation Wars special here.

I meant to blog about this on Wednesday. I turned on the television in my hotel and found myself watching the televangelist . This is the same Peter Popoff who was exposed as a fraud twenty years ago by the debuncker James Randi (I know: you couldn't make these names up). Popoff's amazingly accurate information about audience members at his faith healing gatherings wasn't prompoed by the Holy Spirit, but by his wife's voice in an ear-piece. You can watch the televised expose here:

When Randi's investigation became public, audiences at Popoff's events fell away immediately. He declared bankruptcy within the year. Twenty years later, , broadcasting coast-to-coast. He was offering "miracle spring water" to people in need of healing for a mere $28.30. Some would say that the real miracle here is that Popoff can still make money. But he's apparently doing very well in that regard. Miracle water anyone?

Just got back in from the U.S. and I'm feeling guilty at not blogging more this week. Well, only slightly. After interviewing in Princeton, we travelled to New York to meet Bishop . Both interviews are part of a new television series which airs in the new year. I also interviewed last week in London, and next week I'm back to London to meet and .

We did the Gene Robinson interview in the library of General Theological Seminary in the Chelsea Area of New York (9th Avenue at 20th Street), where the bishop was a student in the late 60s. He was very candid with us, talking about his recent struggles with alcoholism, and about his experience of coming out. We also talked about biblical interpretation and the future of Anglicanism. In addition to very personal comments, he said some interesting things which may also prove newsworthy when the interview goes out in January. I'll say more about that nearer to transmission.

Peter Singer talked about his work on global poverty, infanticide and animal welfare. I asked him about his recent comments on animal experimentation and he confirmed that his views have not changed on this issue -- notwithstanding media reports of an ethical U-turn. He has always accepted that some experimentation is justified in the furtherance of medical research. When pressed on some issues to do with animal ethics, he made some interesting comments that could raise some eyebrows when that interview is broadcast -- but, again, I can't reveal too much. I'm not teasing you; it's just that my producer, Stephen Douds, reads this blog and would have me donated to medical research if I say too much about the rushes.

Now I need to get a few hours sleep and ready myself for Sunday Sequence's Creation Wars special tomorrow morning. I see from the comments that a few of you are well ahead of the game on that discussion already! More soon.

That's Nassau Hall, the historic main building of Princeton University. The town of Princeton in the Fall is quite beautiful. It's too early for the snow just yet; but there's a bite in the air and you can tell that the weather is readying itself for the first fall. I lived here for a few years in the mid-90s and it's been wonderful to walk familiar paths and reminisce. Every corner brings a nostalgia rush.

I've come to Princeton to interview a university professor described by some commentators as "the most dangerous man in the world". He is, of course, Peter Singer, the man named by the New Yorker as the most influential philosopher alive today, but whose defence of infanticide has earned him death threats. I'm here with a film crew to record a longish interview tomorrow morning as part of a new television series which will air sometime in the new year. The format is simple: myself and a guest in conversation. And the guests are signficant "climate changers" -- people who are changing, or trying to change, the way we think about some important issues facing the world today. We stopped by at his office today, in the university's Center for Human Values, and chatted about tomorrow's sit-down interview. Singer is a man of few words. Straight to the point. He's authored more than thirty books and says (somewhere in my research notes) that he much prefers to sit and write rather than sit and talk. But when he does talk about significant matters that interest him, one is in no doubt that he has thought long and hard about every turn of an argument. I'm looking forward to the interview. We'll talk about infanticide, animal welfare issues, and his more recent writings on global poverty.

Apparently, the path to the White House passes through in southern California, whose pastor, Rick Warren, is one of America's evangelical leaders. The author of , and other books with a similar teleological verve, Rick Warren's endorsement for the presidency could help a great deal. Especially when a potential candidate happens to be a liberally-minded Democrat like . Senator Obama gave a at Saddleback marking World Aids Day, which began:

I want to start by saying how blessed I feel to be a part of today and how grateful I am for your church and your pastor, my friend Rick Warren.

Here, as Andrew Sullivan would put it, is the money quote:

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned." I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners. My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness. Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

Does this sound like a future American president who knows how to talk to people of faith? You bet it does.

What happened when Richard Dawkins was questioned by students and lecturers from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, a fundamentalist Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia? Dawkins has been keeping a (sometimes hilarious) of his God Delusion book tour. He gave a reading in the town of Lynchburg last month, on 24 October, and the event was attended by quite a few Liberty students and staff. Here's how Dawkin's describes the evening:

Last night in Lynchburg, Virginia, home of the infamous Jerry Falwell, was memorable. The large hall at Randolph Macon Woman’s College was packed. I gave a fairly short program of readings from The God Delusion, and then the bulk of the evening was given over to much more than an hour of Q & A. The first questioner announced himself as coming from Liberty (Falwell’s 'University'), and he began by saying he had never been so insulted, yet simultaneously so amused, by any lecture. Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people. Only almost and only slightly, however.

You can watch that Q&A here:

Richard Holloway was predictably very articulate this morning in outlining his approach to the Bible. His view won't please traditional believers, but -- and this is predictable too -- it won't really please humanists or non-believers either.

In a previous book, Godless Morality, the former bishop of Edinburgh argues that it is possible to hold onto a substantial notion of morality without recourse to religious commitment. In this new book, How to Read the Bible, he argues for holding onto the Bible (as more than merely an important collection of literature) without recourse to any belief in a supernatural creator (or author).

This strategy accords with Richard's more general apporach to church life: it is possible to hold onto ordination and consecration as a bishop while abandoning belief in God; it is possible to offer prayers in tradtional liturgies without believing they are being heard. You can see how this may be argued. The prayers have a function in a community regardless of the existence of God: prayers are a binding ingredient and express the values and spiritual ambitions of a community that finds its identity in those prayers.

A humanist like AC Grayling -- another of my guests today -- would probably say, "Fine; if it makes you happy, keep saying prayers, and keep reading the Bible, but don't expect me to join in." A more hostile humanist, like Richard Dawkins (who joins us next week on the programme), would probably say, "Nonsense: none of this makes any sense without a God behind it all; and since you've had the good sense to abandon belief in God, do the arithmetic -- follow the logic of your own argument and abandone the trappings of the 'god delusion' as well."

Duke Special's everywhere these days. Quite right too. You may have heard his live session on today's Dermot O'Leary Show on Radio 2. I bumped into the Duke himself in Broadcasting House yesterday afternoon. I was chatting with Adam Harbinson and Priscilla Reid when we spotted him rehearsing for a Radio Scotland gig in a studio. He knew Adam and Priscilla from way back, and dashed out to say hello to them. I was too polite to beg for comp tickets for the Snow Patrol gig he's playing. But in his honour, I'll attach my very first video (of "to this blog. Hope this works . . .

Tomorrow's programme will provoke a little debate here and there. In a programme running from 8.30 to 10.15 am you can expect a lot of topics to be covered. Let me mention just a few: two books, a play and a goat.

First the books. (pictured) is on the programme talking about his new book, He is, of course, Britain's most famous agnostic bishop, and the former head of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I've interviewed him a couple of times previously -- once over coffee at the Edinburgh Book Festival (he always seems to have a new book out) -- and he never fails to say interesting and challanging things. He'll be in conversation with two theologians, Dr David Shepherd and Dr Geraldine Smith.

The second book is by local writer :Adam writes about his experience of the "shepherding movement" in the 70s and 80s, and about other examples of "spiritual bullying". The book is already raising some hackles: though just published this week, it's already been banned from a major Christian conference. from Belfast's Christian Fellowship Church joins us for that discussion.

The play is co-authored by one of Britain's most famous philosophers, A.C. Grayling. Judith Elliott will give it a critical once-over; and AC Grayling will talk about why he's now turning philosophical arguments -- in his case, an argument against religion -- into drama.

The goat? We'll also be debating whether charities should be sending goats and other animals to the developing world as Christmas gifts. and the disagree over this one and will tell us why.