P Z Myers wrote about it on his blog :
I also got into a brief argument with Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, the Muslim creationist. Picture the unholy progeny
of a union between Ken Ham and
William Lane Craig, brought up in a
Muslim household, and you've got this
guy: he simultaneously pushes a
reactionary creationism that is as stupid and shallow as the worst of the
Biblical literalists, and he sprinkles it all
with longwinded philosophical
bafflegab every time he gets
confronted with a challenge. His main
theme (besides engaging in a remarkably evasive gish gallop) was a
rejection of empiricism — every time I asked him for evidence…bleeargh, philosophical boilerplate vomited all
over the place. And of course, in complete
contradiction of his emphasis on why
my empirical evidence was irrelevant,
he kept insisting that he had evidence
from the precision and accuracy of the
Quran that Mohammed must have had a divine revelation to know
all these amazing scientific
phenomena, like detailed knowledge of embryology, which was bunk. I tried to explain that the 'science' in the
Quran was nothing but warmed over
rehashes of dimly understood
Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen, and
Tzortzis and his claque took an
astonishing tack to address that: they repeatedly and with great hyperbole
emphasized that Mohammed was
abysmally ignorant and entirely
isolated from the entirety of Western
culture, having no encounters via
trade or with doctors who might have given him hints of the common
understanding of science of the time. They put me in the uncomfortable
position of having to argue that the
Arabian culture of Mohammed's time
could not possibly be as troglodytic
and benighted as they wanted it to be.
There was no point, of course: they'd already declared that evidence didn't
matter.