‘Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon.’ Fodor, J. ‘Why Pigs don’t have wings,’ London Review of Books, 18th Oct 2007


Tuesday, 27 January 2009

David Attenborough in the News

David Attenborough has a new series coming out for the Darwin celebrations, and has been giving some interviews to the press. Today he claims that creationists have been sending hate mail to him for deny God. "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance" he complains. Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God

There is no excuse for Christians to send hate mail to anyone, not least because Attenborough can milk it for all its worth and avoid drawing attention to the real hate campaign against those who reject the orthodox Darwin dogma - such as has been exposed in the Expelled film. Even those who suggest that children’s beliefs should be respected in the classroom find themselves on the sharp end of the Darwinists’ Doctor Martins, such as Michael Reiss who was booted out of his position from the Royal Society for this reason.

But Attenborough wants us to believe that evolution is a fact not a theory. “Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066." I will save the detailed lecture on why this is false, but suffice it to say that scientific findings should always be held tentatively as often fresh data contradicts what has been found before. When considering our unobserved origins we might wish to proceed with extreme caution if one is really a scientist. But Attenborough is promoting Darwinism with devotion that reveals his religious fervour as an evangelist for atheism. For Attenborough, Darwinism just has to be true, or otherwise he might need to think about his responsibility towards a higher power. He freely admits that he had no religious instruction in his upbringing "It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever.’ It shows!

David Attenborough is also in The Times. David Attenborough on Charles Darwin Attenborough finds himself outraged by creationism and intelligent design. He apparently has ‘beef’ with those who want to teach creationism or intelligent design. Noting a recent survey that found that around a quarter of science teachers in state schools want creationism taught alongside evolution in science lessons he comments. “That is terrible. That is really terrible … I don't know about national [disgrace]; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” he adds. A disgrace to whom I wonder?

He is a charming enough fellow and an excellent presenter, in fact many people have commented that they find him to be one of the greatest story tellers on the television. With lots of brilliant photography his programmes are very watchable. But that is all we have from him, charming stories and iconography with little attempt to show in detail every step of the claimed evolutionary pathway.

It is the work of intelligent design supporters that exposes the falsity of evolutionary pathways that Attenborough and his friends want to keep off our screens and out of the classroom. There is some irony that Attenborough’s new programme is called “Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life” (BBC One, 9pm, Sunday, February 1) when the New Scientists has boldly proclaimed 'Darwin is Wrong' on the question of the tree of life. I guess the New Scientist could have timed its front cover a little better, but perhaps Attenborough can tell us which one to believe and include in textbooks? His version or the New Scientist version?

If the Darwinists have their way then science can Rest in Peace for another 150 years with the sacred Darwin religion held sacred in its place.

Andrew Sibley

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Andrew,
It's difficult to know where to start with this inaccurate and petulant missive.

to wit:

"There is no excuse for Christians to send hate mail to anyone, not least because Attenborough can milk it for all its worth.."

No Andrew, there is no excuse for anyone sending hate mail because it is nasty, cowardly and indicative of a weird personality.

"... and avoid drawing attention to the real hate campaign against those who reject the orthodox Darwin dogma - such as has been exposed in the Expelled film."

What hate campaign would that be Andrew.. see you religious types, we don't agree with you.... we wish you would stop telling lies about "intelligent Design" being "scientific”...well hardly a hate campaign is it? More a plea for honesty.

"Even those who suggest that children’s beliefs should be respected in the classroom find themselves on the sharp end of the Darwinists’ Doctor Martins"...

"children's beliefs" is it Andrew. And how exactly does an 8-year-old reach the conclusion that the universe has been created by an unnamed and unidentified designer, and that this is not really religion it's true science, honest guv, and nothing to do with the creation science that it mysteriously replaced? I'm always astonished how little attached to honesty religious people become when they indulge these types of arguments.

"...such as Michael Reiss who was booted out of his position from the Royal Society for this reason...."

Michael Reiss was dismissed for suggesting that religion could be taught in a science class, thus demonstrating ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of both disciplines.

"But Attenborough wants us to believe that evolution is a fact not a theory. “Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."".

And he is right. Evolution is observable in the laboratory. It is supported by whole libraries of evidence, biological, palaeontological, theoretical, logical and from practical studies in the lab and in the field. You might not agree with it Andrew, but that's your problem, not David Attenborough's.

"I will save the detailed lecture on why this is false, but suffice it to say that scientific findings should always be held tentatively as often fresh data contradicts what has been found before. When considering our unobserved origins we might wish to proceed with extreme caution if one is really a scientist..."

Very good principles, Andrew. Now how’s about applying them to creationism and, dare I say it, the existence of god? No? Thought not. BTW, Attenborough is right here, and he is applying these very principles because, EVOLUTION is an observed fact, Darwin's THEORY of evolution is, like all scientific theories, challengeable. Evolution happens, maybe someone (call them Jones) will come up with a better explanation than Darwin, in which case we will then have "Jones's" Theory of Evolution.. but it will still explain evolution.

"But Attenborough is promoting Darwinism with devotion that reveals his religious fervour.."

Oh dear Andrew, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth bothering to reply to your stuff, it's so juvenile. Just because YOU believe "religiously" doesn't mean that everyone else does. As you say above, Attenborough believes in a scientific theory because the evidence supports it: if the evidence shows something else, he, like anyone with a brain, will look at the evidence and, if necessary change his mind. Compare that with your average religious person, who believes with faith, and who does not change his beliefs as the evidence changes.

"...as an evangelist for atheism..."

Andrew, are you saying that if you believe in Darwin's ToE, you must be an atheist? Andrew, there are thousands of scientists who support the ToE who are also practicing Christians, Muslims, Jews..deists, theists, and etcetera...

"..For Attenborough, Darwinism just has to be true, or otherwise he might need to think about his responsibility towards a higher power..."

No Andrew, for Attenborough, the Theory of Evolution is supported by the facts and evidence as we know them. He has no need of a higher power. As you say
"... He freely admits that he had no religious instruction in his upbringing "It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever.’"

Your god is not in his thoughts, Andrew. He couldn't care less about a higher power. A higher power impinges nowhere on his consciousness. Accept it.

".. He apparently has ‘beef’ with those who want to teach creationism or intelligent design."

I'm sure he doesn't. His "beef" is with those who would teach ID, which is the religious idea of a god/designer, in science classes. I'm sure if you asked him "can I teach ID in religious studies"?, he would say "teach whatever nonsense you like in religious studies, just keep it out of science classes." And that's the problem Andrew, too many people want to teach religious ideas in science classes, ID is the stalking horse.

"Noting a recent survey that found that around a quarter of science teachers in state schools want creationism taught alongside evolution in science lessons he comments. “That is terrible. That is really terrible … I don't know about national [disgrace]; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” he adds. A disgrace to whom I wonder?"

It's a disgrace to science, and to religion. ID, as well as being not science, is bad theology.

"... But that is all we have from him, charming stories and iconography with little attempt to show in detail every step of the claimed evolutionary pathway..."

Andrew, David Attenborough does nature programmes. He is not trying to describe evolutionary pathways. If you want that, go to science courses. Then you might learn why the ToE is a strong theory and why ID is not science.

"It is the work of intelligent design supporters that exposes the falsity of evolutionary pathways that Attenborough and his friends want to keep off our screens and out of the classroom. "

not true in two ways: ID does not expose anything except the scientific ignorance and religious philosophy of its adherents, and there is no attempt in the UK to keep ID out of classrooms, just science classrooms, because it's not science.

"There is some irony that Attenborough’s new programme is called “Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life” (BBC One, 9pm, Sunday, February 1) when the New Scientists has boldly proclaimed 'Darwin is Wrong' on the question of the tree of life. I guess the New Scientist could have timed its front cover a little better, but perhaps Attenborough can tell us which one to believe and include in textbooks? His version or the New Scientist version?"

The idea of a "tangled bush" rather than a "tree of life" is a refinement of how scientists think about the ToE. It is an example of the approach you quoted where further investigations reveal more evidence which changes the way we think about the subject. That scientists now think that the Tree of Life illustration may be better illustrated by a more tangled relationship is, if it is accepted, an example of how science works.

Dissenter said...

>>>"There is no excuse for Christians to send hate mail to anyone, not least because Attenborough can milk it for all its worth.."

No Andrew, there is no excuse for anyone sending hate mail because it is nasty, cowardly and indicative of a weird personality.<<<

deliberately misrepresents what Andrew actually wrote. Andrew and I both condemn hate mail. But Attenborough DOES milk it for all its worth. I would not be surprised if some of it is sent by Darwinists posing as Christians fpr propaganda purposes




>>>Michael Reiss was dismissed for suggesting that religion could be taught in a science class, thus demonstrating ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of both disciplines.<<<


This assertion is a lie which can be checked quite easily. Reiss was forced to resign because he advised a respectful discussion to win creationist students over to evolution IF THEY raised the subject. He specfically said he did not want time for intelligent design in the curriculum and that creationism was unscientific. He wanted time to prove this IF IT CAME UP. I listened and made careful notes and posts both times when he was on the radio. Please withdraw this falsehood.

please don't insult intelligence by suggesting that calling a Christian a liar is not hate (when the Bible says that Satan is the father of lies and that all liars will go to Hell) And you know perfectly well it goes much further than that. Do you deny that Dawkins compares questioning Darwin in schools with child abuse? Google if you doubt. Accusation of child abuse not hate?

>>>Evolution is observable in the laboratory.<<<

no it isn't. No animal, or even a microbe, has ever been observed changing into another sort of animal. Darwinists get away with this deceit by calling trivial variations evolution. This is a misuse of language intended to deceive.

>>>Oh dear Andrew, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth bothering to reply to your stuff, it's so juvenile.....ID does not expose anything except the scientific ignorance and religious philosophy of its adherents, <<<

And you, O nameless one, claim the moral high ground on 'hate mail', while posting this sort of stuff anonymously.

I can't be bothered to respond to the rest. Jesus said 'blessed are you when men speak all maner of evil against you falsely on my acount, your reward will be great in heaven.' The converse is also true.

Anonymous said...

Andrew,
this post and your reply to my efforts are so silly that I can only suspect that the whole site has been set up by scientists to make creationists lok daft.

They're succeeding.

Anonymous said...

No anon. we're just trying to make twisted paths straight by examining evidence in the cool light of day - without the emotional need to believe in evolution - isn't that what science is?