Horizon tonite - BBC2 9pm - Evolution vs Creationist twaddle

[poster342002]

For intelligent design to work 'god' must have a brain which can't possibly have evolved on it's own.

So who intelligently designed 'god'?

Indeed! I have never heard religionists answer that one. They can't - that very question traps them in a self-contained, self-perpetuating loop of their own non-logic.

 

[miss_b]

I saw a bit of the Hawkins programme on a few weeks ago and couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of it. It was so obviously a back-slapping 'oh aren't we clever althests' polemic.

Whether you beleive in a God or evolution or both or none, you must admit that fundamentalists exist on both sides, and do neither any good. The Muslim fundamentalists that spout complete hateful rubbish which most Muslims despise are partly responsible for the attacks on anyone who looks Muslim (whether they are or not) by thugs who call them all 'suicide bombers'. The Christian fundamentalists (in the US especially) cause all sorts of grief by banning abortion and sticking their noses into education and politics where it's not wanted.

Everyone has a right to beleive what they want, and hard-nosed narrow-minded atheists are just as bad as their religious counterparts in denying others this right. There are infinite arguments for both sides of this.

 

[Crispy]

He's an atheist fundamentalist, with absolutely *no* understanding of the "religion" against which he fulminates. I'd be willing to bet on his conversion to Christianity within five years.

I'll take that bet! Paypal ok?

 

[miss_b]

I'll take that bet! Paypal ok?

We should open a book on it and use the funds to pay for U75

 

[goldenecitrone]

Everyone has a right to beleive what they want.

But do some people have the right to try to indoctrinate others with their demonstrably false beliefs?

 

[Fruitloop]

He's an atheist fundamentalist, with absolutely *no* understanding of the "religion" against which he fulminates. I'd be willing to bet on his conversion to Christianity within five years.

I'd be willing to take that bet too, you nutter!

 

[MikeMcc]

I saw a bit of the Hawkins programme on a few weeks ago and couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of it. It was so obviously a back-slapping 'oh aren't we clever althests' polemic.

Whether you beleive in a God or evolution or both or none, you must admit that fundamentalists exist on both sides, and do neither any good. The Muslim fundamentalists that spout complete hateful rubbish which most Muslims despise are partly responsible for the attacks on anyone who looks Muslim (whether they are or not) by thugs who call them all 'suicide bombers'. The Christian fundamentalists (in the US especially) cause all sorts of grief by banning abortion and sticking their noses into education and politics where it's not wanted.

Everyone has a right to beleive what they want, and hard-nosed narrow-minded atheists are just as bad as their religious counterparts in denying others this right. There are infinite arguments for both sides of this.

The trouble is that the most ardent proponents for ID are trying to pass it off as science, they even want it taught in science at school. It clearly doesn't meet any criteria for scientific theory, it is in fact a belief. Now if they want to mention it in RE I don't have a problem with that, it is as valid a belief as any other. But it should not be thought of as science.

 

[Fruitloop]

The idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want is somewhat at odds with the facts - for example believing yourself to be Napolean is likely to result in enforced medication. Fundamentalist religion is similar in everything but the epidemiological aspect.

 

[phildwyer]

I'll take that bet! Paypal ok?

Weeellll... will you give me ten to one?

 

[J77]

Excellent show - first time I've watched Horizon all the way through for ages.

What struck me was that the anti-evolution people kept going back to Darwin.

Surely, the biggest mistake here is, yes, Darwin started the idea, but since then thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers have been written on the subject.

There are no such credible papers on 'intelligent design'.

This point was never given but it strikes me as the crux of the argument - a scientific theory can only be regarding as established such a vast number of independent reviews and evalutions.

Or did I miss something???

(The Bush bit was quite scary - and funny cos' he couldn't string a sentence together.)

 

[miss_b]

But do some people have the right to try to indoctrinate others with their demonstrably false beliefs?

No, and this means atheists and religious people. Surely teaching both, as a theory e.g the Creationst Theory, the Evolutionary Theory is the best idea? We are unable to 100% prove or disprove either, so why not give them both the ambiguity they deserve then people can make up their own minds.

IMHO anyway

 

[Brainaddict]

No, its just that the programme is a stitch up just like the Dawkins programme. I saw the first part of that and used my intelligence to deduce that it wasn't going to ttransform from a cheap attack on caricature fundamentalists into a balanced view of more subtle and personal experiences of spirituality. Was the second part a radical departure?

Do you think this programme is going to be balanced and fair about the deeply held personal belief of many that the universe has an underlying consciousness/intelligence to it that is aware of itself as we are aware of ourselves?

Or do yo think maybe its going to present arguments about intelligent design and use this phrase, that has been co-opted by religious fundamentalists and creationists to give their dogmatic ideas new credence, to undermine any belief in a conscious creating principle.

Will it discuss the work of Fritjof Capra, Stanislav Grof, Albert Hoffman, maybe even the Deism of scholars of the the Enlightenment such as Thomas Paine, or will it pick on barely concealed Christian scientists who are as closed minded as the atheist scientists who will be brought out at the end to underline the point that really Darwin theory is fact and anyone who questions one iota of this theory is a superstitious fool?

What do you think? This is tabloid TV, or rather agenda TV. it has no interest in truth. It's nothing to do with making my mind up. Don't make me out to be the fundy. It borne of experience and the boring predictability of it all. I'm waiting for that balanced programme to come along. But if it did it would shake the foundations of established thought. it's about time that happened.

Well I kind of see your point - certainly there are far more moderate religious types who have more moderate views on how the Universe was created.

However the fact remains that ID *is* being pushed by nutty fundamentalists right now (some of whom are in the whitehouse), with a particular science-undermining agenda, so they are the ones who - quite rightly - come under attack.

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

In what way? Care to provide examples?

What was before the Big Bang DAwkins , ya wee gobshite?

 

[Fruitloop]

Big Bang Dawkins sounds like a cowboy

Seriously, the Big Bang was the beginning of all 'before's

 

[miss_b]

Big Bang Dawkins sounds like a cowboy

A gay cowboy. Isn't he in Brokeback Mountain?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

In what way? Care to provide examples?

Dawkins dumped phil by text message. It was quite nasty.

 

[goldenecitrone]

No, and this means atheists and religious people. Surely teaching both, as a theory e.g the Creationst Theory, the Evolutionary Theory is the best idea? We are unable to 100% prove or disprove either, so why not give them both the ambiguity they deserve then people can make up their own minds.

IMHO anyway

So teach Evolutionary theory in the science lesson and Creationist theory in the RE lesson and let the kids make up their own minds. Teaching Intelligent Design as science would be a bad joke if it wasn't so sinister.

 

[Brainaddict]

So teach Evolutionary theory in the science lesson and Creationist theory in the RE lesson and let the kids make up their own minds. Teaching Intelligent Design as science would be a bad joke if it wasn't so sinister.

Exactly. Miss_b, attaching the word 'theory' to both ideas does not make them equal. The reason for that is that evolution is a scientific theory and ID is a religious theory. So though they could both be described as theories, they not only aren't in the same ball park, they are playing a completely different game, and therefore cannot honestly be taught as though they are comparable.

 

[laptop]

So teach Evolutionary theory in the science lesson and Creationist theory in the RE lesson and let the kids make up their own minds.

But RE lessons are illegal in state schools in the USA.

The main point of so-called "Intelligent Design" is to smuggle religious education into schools. It's a Trojan Horse.

The second point - as Dembski made clear in lectures he gave at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - is that teaching evolution challenges the power of the preachers (makes students "lose their faith" as he put it), therefore must be stamped out.

 

[J77]

No, and this means atheists and religious people. Surely teaching both, as a theory e.g the Creationst Theory, the Evolutionary Theory is the best idea? We are unable to 100% prove or disprove either, so why not give them both the ambiguity they deserve then people can make up their own minds.

IMHO anyway

...but the creation stuff is just an idea.

Evolution has had loads of scientific theorems and proofs written about it - the whole 'survival of the fittest' thing, which many people first think of, is the tip of the iceberg: the pop-science bit.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

the problem with inteligent design is at the heart of it it fills in the blanks with "it woz god that done it" rather than atempting to fill those blanks.

there is a really rather good bit about the flagellum in the the terry pratchett and co book on darwin ... it not only gives a perfectrly reasonable explanation of the development of the flagelium from another celular system but points out that this argument is exactly the same argument as paley's argument about the eye being imposible without the hand of god ... and the same can be said of all the other claims... just because you can understand how something can be designed by evolution dose not mean that it is impossible


and the problem with this show was that it spent practacly no time discusing the science behind the claims

 

[golightly]

He's an atheist fundamentalist

You are clearly an idiot.

fun·da·men·tal·ism
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

 

[phildwyer]

You are clearly an idiot.

Actually, I think you'll find that "atheist fundamentalism" is quite a well-known term. I thought I'd invented it, but Laptop reckons it's not true.

 

[golightly]

What was before the Big Bang DAwkins , ya wee gobshite?

Dawkins is an biologist not a cosmologist, you berk.

 

[golightly]

Actually, I think you'll find that "atheist fundamentalism" is quite a well-known term. I thought I'd invented it, but Laptop reckons it's not true.

Well, that just means you're not alone in being an idiot then.

 

[phildwyer]

Dawkins is an biologist not a cosmologist, you berk.

That doesn't stop him from pontificating about cosmology, theology, and everything else about which he knows less than zilch. He's an absolutely crap biologist, too.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Dawkins doesn't show any subtlety of thought when it comes to religion, and he often picks easy targets. However, the issue here is science, and Dawkins is right to vent his fury against those who want to pretend that an element of their faith is science.

 

[laptop]

He's an absolutely crap biologist, too.

And your opinion on his biology is worth...

Have you read The Extended Phenotype?

Him standing in the way of your ambition to invent a religion, and him being on the telly when you're not, may be reason for tooth-grinding jealousy, but neither is a basis from which to review his work.

 

[golightly]

That doesn't stop him from pontificating about cosmology, theology, and everything else about which he knows less than zilch. He's an absolutely crap biologist, too.

Your not capable of a rational debate if all you can do is resort such peurile attacks. What exactly is your knowledge of biology that enables you to make such an assertion? And what exactly is less than zilch? How can you know less than nothing?

 

[treefrog]

I find it interesting that I was able to have a far more reasoned, intelligent discussion on this very subject with a group of year 10's from varying faiths and creeds than seems to be put forward by some adults here.

One told me that in science classes she wanted to learn the facts as we know them now, and that religion, whether hers or anyone else's, should not have a place there.

Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but if the students want to learn about science, I say we teach them science. Other agendas have no place in the classroom.