Wednesday, December 21, 2011

#271: Angus Menuge

There’s been a slew of creationists lately, and here’s another one. Angus Menuge is a professor of philosophy at Concordia University and has published stuff in (from a philosophical point of view) certain half-respectable venues (and in Christian apologetics journals). He is a hardcore Christian apologetic who claims to have been converted by C.S. Lewis – he claims to have been an agnostic before that but contradicts that claim well enough by himself (why are very religious people so often dishonest about such things?). He is, as mentioned, a firm creationist, and he is also a Fellow at the Discovery Institute. During the Kansas evolution hearings he refused to answer the question of how old the earth is.

You can see him debate PZ Myers here. It ought to be slightly embarrassing to philosophers that a biologist, though he glosses a few interesting philosophical distinctions, comes across as so much better at philosophy than philosophy professor Menuge in a debate like this. Here is a summary of his testimonial during the Kansas evolution hearings, showing that Menuge has no clue about biology, paleontology or, for that matter, critical thinking, and comes across as suggesting that he skipped some rather crucial lectures in his Intro to Philosophy class.

He has also claimed that there is no doubt that the Darwinian inquisition is happening (no, I won’t provide a link). His main piece of evidence is the Richard Sternberg case. Menuge bases his interpretation of the case on the Discovery Institute’s press release.

Diagnosis: A sad case. Menuge is another shill for fundamentalist religion who pulls the usual tricks in his anti-science crusade. His impact is probably limited, however.


  1. Menuge is the man. You are the loon.

  2. Wow, this is such a balanced and unbiased, site. I really like the way you avoid pejorative attacks on people.


    I found Prof. Menuge to be competent about the philosophy of mind, charitable to the philosopher he was critiquing, and reasonable. You may disagree with many of his assumptions, but to refer to him as a loon is pejorative, ad hominem, and unhelpful.

  4. He'd be happy to debate you. Why don't you contact him if you're so sure of his errors? Or is it beneath your dignity to debate a loon, especially when it would be such an easy win? Whoever runs this blog seriously needs to get a life.

    1. And what purpose do you think a debate is going to serve? A debate is "won" by having the best debating skills, not by being right, and there isn't necessarily any correlation between those two.

      Science doesn't progress by debates, but by evidence. If the question is one of biology, or the history of the Earth, then dazzling non-biologists with debate skills counts for nothing; Menuge will impress me only when he has acquired enough evidence, and a sufficiently rich understanding of the fields, to convince the experts.