[irrelig]Surprise! Kirk Hastings’ recent email drew me out of (semi-)retirement. After recovering from those withering electronic insults, I sat down with expert Hovindologist Matt W to review Hastings’ magnum opus, “What Is Truth?” We examined his many and varied claims about truthology, and how they relate to science and most especially “Darwinism.” In this episode — part one of a three-part series — we discuss Kirk’s conversion process and his absolutely unshocking failure to grasp even the basic principles of science and mathematics while he attempts to take down Darwinism. This series could also be entitled, “We read Kirk Hastings’ shitty rehashed creationist screed so you don’t have to.”

Kirk does get an A for effort, though, and should he succeed in his quest to demolish Darwin’s theory of evil-ution, he may ultimately end up with a Nobel Prize. History (or maybe the next episode, where we finish talking about the science portion of his book) will have to render a verdict on that score.

77 Responses to “111: Kirk Hastings’ “What Is Truth?””

  1. Citizen Wolf says:

    In an interview on The Truth Ministries, Kirk says he’s working on the plot and characters of an adventure novel. !!! [pained and horrified look on my face]

    I’m guessing the hero will be somesort of christian dude. Probably saves the day through prayer and recounting passages from the bible. Gawd I’m suffering a cerebral shutdown at the mindnumbingly boring potential of it all.

    For those interested, or with absolutely nothing better to do…

  2. Hastings does have an adventure book already out: Infinity Man. Here’s the blurb:

    He was the strongest man ever built. No one knew where he came from. Even he didn’t know. But he had to find out. One thing he did know–he was the perfect combination of man and machine: the conscious rational intellect of a human being, combined with the unstoppable power of an artificial metallic construct. And he considered humans–with their ever-changeable emotions, corruptible character, and feeble physical bodies–to be totally inferior. If he decides to set himself against the human race, will mankind survive?

    And at least according to one (of three) reviews, it is “crackerjack from beginning to end.”

  3. OyVeySmear says:

    Yeah!!!!!! Checked my iTunes on a whim.. what are the chances! Listening now!

  4. articulett says:

    Egads! Infinity Man sounds dreadful…

    (But it would make fantastic fodder for Irreligiousophy!)

  5. ExCatholic Rob says:


    We missed you. Can you restart the forums please??? I need a place to bash certain political figures with no sense of science and understanding. And the skunk dicks are in full bloom!!!

    ExCatholic Rob

  6. Hey, Chuck great job. I really enjoyed this. Thanks.

  7. I wish I could smash Kirk’s smug face in with the geologic column.

  8. The review I left on the Amazon page~~~~

    Kirk. Next time you write a book, write a book.

    In evangelical land, people might get away with writing their books on truth without a scrap of actual research. In evangelical land, all you’ve got to do to be taken seriously is parrot other evangelicals. That is what I mean when I say you didn’t really write a book. What you did is smush together a bunch of fundamentalist blog posts and Answers In Genesis talking points, applying zero scrutiny to anything you already believe, and then you tied it up in a little bow with your name on it. And yet you hold your head up high, and think yourself enlightened. Meanwhile, the rest of the world toils and labors to discover the actual truth, because they’re not content to sit on a Bible and act superior on a microphone.

    Here’s your precious truth, Kirk. You reap what you sew.

  9. Was looking forward to this more than any second coming! It just struck me, why hasn’t anyone ever pointed out how filthy that sounds? Thousands of years of hype about the ending of a refractory period…go figure.

  10. So lovely to hear the voice of Almighty Chuck. Um, why can’t Matt be om Irreligiosophy and keep it going? I actually really like him.

  11. Hmm, Chloe. Hmmmmmm.

  12. Citizen Wolf says:

    @Gliblord, shouldn’t that be

    ‘you reap what you sow’

    Yea, sorry, I know, I’m being a pedantic little fecker.

  13. If Kirk replies back, our plan is to simply respond with a link to this waterproof keyboard:


  14. Does “part one of a three part series” imply that all three parts are recorded and we can look forward to more episodes in the upcoming weeks, or does it mean you still have to find time to record two more between all your extra shifts?

  15. @ Gliblord: Awesome.

    @ Ernst: We’ve recorded the first two. Who knows, the religion section might warrant two episodes as well.

  16. MagnusEMentula says:

    Just saw another episode downloading and nearly shit my pants. And there’s a new project in the works? God MUST be real!

    Also, guest appearances on other podcasts? Get thine ass over to Reasonable Doubts!

  17. So I took a different tack in leaving a review. My idea was: How can I leave a review such that I maximise the chance that Kirk will send Chuck hate mail because of it. Here is my review:

    I would like you to know that I have perused your book, as I am quite interested in the theist/atheist debate. For your information, at this point I am still somewhat on the fence concerning exactly what God might or might not be. I haven’t made up my mind yet.

    Nevertheless, I have to tell you that I found your book to be overall a pretty poor defence of Christianity in general. First of all, because of the incredibly bad research methodology. You probably think it is all a big joke or something, but frankly, as a fairly responsible adult I can tell you that to me it came across as little more than a copy-pasted rehash of long answered straw man arguments from Christian bloggers who neither understood the question they asked nor they answer they made up. In the end you do as to much harm to christianity as you do to defend it. For the most part you come across to me as smug, unquestioning, parrot who has never been taught to think for himself. You decide God must exist and agree with you on every topic and there is no point critically evaluating the evidence as you see no way you could possibly be wrong.

    Also, many of your arguments fall seriously flat in the logic, reason, and scientific categories (I am in the archaeological field, and I know something about logic and reason, being forced to rely on it on the dig site). You put forth a number of so-called “intellectual” positions that are viciously flung into the reader’s face as if they are “facts” (instead of just theories, opinions, and/or speculations or as is most often the case incorrect arguments for which mounds of evidence exist disproving them), and then you adopt an extremely smug, condescending, “this is right just because Jesus” attitude toward anyone who might decide to disagree with you.

    Lately I have been reading material by Chuck, an award-nominated investigative podcaster. I find his arguments for atheism compelling and reasonable — and his rational investigation of the facts by seeking out the evidence and critically evaluating his own positions resonates with me. I also relate to the fact that at one time he was an avowed theist, until he decided to research the question of God itself just as he would research any other investigation. His professionalism also resonates with me. I find little or no professionalism in your book. Again, all I find is a repetition of the worst arguments from the least investigative christian sites. There is nothing serious or rational about such an unthinking approach to what is a very important question to most people. (As an example see your citation of the disproved Meister footprint as evidence that dinosaurs walked alongside humans).

    My suggestion to you: if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who really matters in this world, then stop copy pasting AIG, and start applying some real legitimate investigative and research skills to what you do. That way, you might end up attracting some readers that are something other than just christians only looking for confirmation of their beliefs.

    Billy Batson

  18. Mathias Nylund says:

    What a great surprise to see a new episode! Great to hear you again, Chuck, and great job, Matt!

  19. @Tort — brilliant, subtle, and something only Kirk would get. And it’s even signed by a fictional comic book superhero.

    On the flip side, it looks like Kirk has noticed the reviews. “Someone” has gone through and marked every negative review “not helpful.” Ha!

  20. Tort, you are awesome.

  21. This was kinda like seeing someone i thought was dead on the street… Did a double take and proceeded to do happy shit

  22. Just a question… is it possible the book had 10 to the -50th say 10xe-50? because that would make it a fraction which would be less than one. Which would make your rant utterly trite. I’ll assume you are aware that exponents can express #’s less than 1 by using a negative exponent vs. a positive one.

    I hate religion myself. I figured out a few years ago after reading Hitchens and Dawkins that I just don’t know, and since no one will ever really find out, that’s where I’d like to stay. When religious people ask me… I say I just don’t know… and we don’t. No proof of God’s existence or absolute proof of the lack thereof. I’m like a scientist who doesn’t give a damn on the matter. I’m open to new proof, but I really don’t think it’ll happen in my lifetime.


  23. is it possible the book had 10 to the -50th say 10xe-50? because that would make it a fraction which would be less than one. Which would make your rant utterly trite.

    Oh give me some credit here. The book says 10^50. Not 1 in 10^50, not 10^-50 (which is equivalent to 1/10^50), but just plain 10^50. And not once but twice.

  24. Lucy Harris says:

    U238Willy, if you define a god specifically enough, we can know whether it exists or not. I do know biblegod does not exist. So there.

  25. Lucy Harris says:

    A vote here to not make Matt a permanent co-host. Nothing against him, seems splendid enough, just my podcasting taste. My vote is for Dr. Zaius. Could be fun, at least as a guest sometime.

  26. I’m late to this party, but god it was good to hear you say, “Hello and welcome to Irreligiosophy.”

    Thanks for re-recording.

  27. Stafford Mayeaux says: