Not much, actually. There are three items of marginal interest.
1. They’ve stopped arguing about Adam and Eve, and now they’re onto the interpretation of Cain and Abel.
2. There’s a very short video by MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson on what’s wrong with New Atheism (he redefines it as “militant atheism”). He beefs that it’s not really “new” (yes, we all know that what’s new is not the arguments, but the Gnu’s willingness to engage religion directly, as well as the widespread public acceptance). A snippet from the video:
One can analyze lots of reasons why there’s this renewed edge to the criticism of religion. I think there are many different countervailing forces. One certainly shouldn’t rule out what’s been happening in this decade in the confrontation between, for example, Islam and the West, and those kinds of things. And that’s certainly been one factor in provoking these kinds of reactions. But, by and large, the arguments that are put forward to justify the viewpoint of the militant atheists—they are not particularly new, even though the situation is perhaps new. The arguments that they put forward mostly are not terribly new—to say that some of their arguments simply don’t work. They don’t make sense philosophically; they don’t make sense scientifically. The arguments in their favor simply aren’t very strong.
By and large, you don’t make New York Times bestseller lists based on proving that somebody is wrong or putting together careful arguments to show that they’re wrong. That’s perhaps part of their attraction to a certain segment of the population—that is, that’s what makes it a new kind of phenomenon in that it basically shows no respect for religion whatsoever, because militant atheists think that religion is basically a bad thing and needs to be condemned.
Jealousy! How often does it come down to the fact that Gnu books have been best sellers, while accommodationist tomes linger, unbought, in the “Religion” section? The curious thing is that Hutchinson seems to assume that we must have respect for religion, and that the lack of that respect it is a very serious failing. Sadly, the margins of Dr. Hutchinson’s video were too small to contain the New Atheist arguments that supposedly don’t work. (And, as you might suspect, he’s also had a ride on the Templeton money train.)
3. Finally, Uncle Karl and Francis Collins have a new book! It’s called The Language of Science and Faith (the subtitle is Straight Answers to Genuine Questions), and appears to be based largely on the “frequently asked questions” section of BioLogos. Now Collins wasn’t supposed to be engaged in this Jebus-proselytizing after he took up the reins of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but I’ve seen assurances (I can’t find them at the moment) that his contribution to the book preceded his NIH directorship. I doubt, however, whether the volume will do much for his reputation.
Here’s the list of other books bought by those who viewed Collins et Giberson (LOL!):