Intelligent Design

David Attenborough in the News

Spread the love

David Attenborough has a new series coming out for the Darwin celebrations on BBC 1 in the UK, 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 He 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.

science and Values

15 Replies to “David Attenborough in the News

  1. 1
    StuartHarris says:

    Instead of “Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God”, the title of the article ought to be “Attenborough revels in creationist hate mail for not crediting God”.

  2. 2
    GSV says:

    He seems quite angry about it all doesn;t he?

    One thing in that article did make me think was his point about the worm that was killing the child, why would such a thing be designed?

  3. 3
    Gods iPod says:

    Oh that’s terrible. I wish I knew how to email him to apologize. This is not the way of Yeshua.

  4. 4
    Red John says:

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

    Untrue. You act as though evolution is the only reason people have for not believing in a god. I stopped believing in gods before I knew anything about evolution, and if the theory of evolution turned out to be wrong, I would continue not believing, as would all of the atheists I know.

  5. 5
    AussieID says:

    Attenborough is rehashing the same stuff. He used the same story some time back on Australian TV, but he has been informed that the argument he uses is more tugging on the heart strings than scientific. Let me see if I can be more scientific than tear-jerking:

    The disease is called Loiasis. The ‘eye worm of Africa’ is known as Loa Loa. It’s transmitted to humans via the bite of a horse fly or a deer fly that is infected. It’s also quite treatable through using Diethylcarbamazine (DEC).

    You’ll find the worm living in subcutaneous tissue such as under the skin in the back, the chest, groin, scalp, armpits and eyes of humans. For Attenborough to only intimate that it is found in the eye (and, as he always tells the story, of a ‘child’) is incorrect, though it can easily migrate there. If you look up Disease Database, it notes that this disease is normally mild and painless. So, it doesn’t need to bore through a child’s eye. and blindness is not inevitable.

    Another parasitic worm called Onchocerca volvulus, causes River Blindness. Although similar, this is not the ‘Eye Worm of Africa’ but is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Flies are the cause of this problem too. The parasite migrates through the host’s body, eventually to the skin and possibly the eyes.

    Interestingly, bateria (that lives on the parasite) may be majorly held responsible for the inflamation. There is intense itching in the skin, but where the organism infects the cornea, this part of the eye can become inflamed and the cornea can become scarred.
    Thankfully, medicine is available and Invermectin works well prior to this stage.

    As said, on Australian TV he noted that it “can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball”. Although tragic to those who are not able to get medicine, he is technically incorrect. Firstly it is not designed to live in the eyeball and nowhere else, as he has often stated. It doesn’t need to bore through a child’s eye. In my reading I’ve found that if it lands there it can’t complete its life cycle. Secondly, from a Biblical perspective, degeneration following the Fall explains many features of today’s parasites, which did not have the same life cycle pre-Fall.

    What is inevitable is that Attenborough will continue to rehash such statements knowing full well that his audience will go, “oh how awful” and not check to see if the facts he uses are ‘enhanced’ to suit his purpose.

    Gods iPod: please email Attenborough and tell him to use scientific arguments rather than what are essentially theological ones. His rant is about what God supposedly would or would not do rather than about the scientific evidence. Can you see that he claims that evolution is about science, yet his main anti-creation/ID argument is theological rather than scientific.

  6. 6
    Toronto says:

    AussieID[4]

    You said:

    Secondly, from a Biblical perspective, degeneration following the Fall explains many features of today’s parasites, which did not have the same life cycle pre-Fall.

    Followed by:

    Gods iPod: please email Attenborough and tell him to use scientific arguments rather than what are essentially theological ones.

    Why is only Attenborough restricted to scientific arguments?

  7. 7
    IRQ Conflict says:

    Gods iPod “Oh that’s terrible. I wish I knew how to email him to apologize. This is not the way of Yeshua.”

    “They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance”

    This is correct, it is not the way of Christ, and they know it. You have nothing to apologize for.

  8. 8
    GSV says:

    To AussieID “from a Biblical perspective, degeneration following the Fall explains many features of today’s parasites, which did not have the same life cycle pre-Fall.”

    What life cycle did they have pre-Fall?

  9. 9
    mtreat says:

    I have never understood the “bad/evil design” argument. Claiming that we can’t be designed because it’s a poor or evil design just doesn’t make any sense to me. The scope of the ID research project is to develop the math, science, and reason necessary to reliably infer design (assuming design is indeed present). Just as the scope of a forensic scientist is limited to determining cause of death, ID is limited to detecting design. Period. It could be little green men, time-travelers, or (horror of horrors for atheists) a transcendent being. It could be a “good” design or a “bad” one (from our limited perspective).

    Unlike the creationists, ID doesn’t concern itself with who did it or why. For those of you old enough to remember the T.V. series “Quincy M.E.” starring Jack Klugman, the protagonist was both medical examiner and detective. While it made for a mildly entertaining show, that’s not the way it works in real life. Medical examiners don’t really run around playing private investigator/detective. Attacking ID because you don’t like the thought of designer that would create/allow “the eye worm of Africa” makes just as much sense.

    It’s like a forensic scientist ruling for death by natural causes simply because they aren’t suitably impressed with the *way* someone was murdered. Silly.

  10. 10
    Nooj says:

    “Claiming that we can’t be designed because it’s a poor or evil design just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

    Attenborough didn’t say that an evil design disproved a designer, he said he couldn’t reconcile it with the idea of a *benevolent* creator.

  11. 11
    AussieID says:

    G’day GSV,

    I’ll have a quick atempt at explaining.

    Parasites have basically three different roles:

    They may be Pathogenic (so, detrimental to the host, though not necessarily fatal).

    Commensal (these are neutral and co-exist harmlessly with the host).

    Symbiotic (beneficial to both the host and parasite).

    As such, parasites are not essentially a problem all the time. It is when they get in the wrong place that harm and illness may be caused. It is also important to remember that their role on earth is extremely important: as animals digest food so they need their waste recycled – along come the parasites! They break down waste materials into simple compounds that can be utilised by higher-ordered animals. The death of the planet would be assured without the parasite.

    If I can look back at River Blindness, that I briefly touched on at #5, it is only mosquitoes that are egg-laying that are the biters: they require protein to produce eggs. Males eat nectar, so are not the problem (for once we can’t be blamed!).

    Parasites in the wrong place is the issue. No one can give any definitive answer to your question, but it is much simpler to suggest devolution than evolution (of new information) in considering how such incredible structures arose.

  12. 12
    GSV says:

    To AussieID

    Thank you for your reply. I hate to seem dumb but I do not know what you mean by devolution can you elaborate please?

  13. 13
    Patrick says:

    “Devolution” is a popular term to use, but since MET says evolution is not guided or focused on “upward” progress it’s usage is not proper. “Fixation of deleterious mutations” or “genetic entropy” or “degeneration” would probably be better descriptions although personally I see nothing wrong with using devolution as long as you are communicating your meaning clearly.

  14. 14
    mtreat says:

    nooj: Our inability to reconcile things we see in nature with our idea of a benevolent creator is commonly used as an argument against ID. My point is that this “bad/evil” design argument is irrelevant to the ID debate. Design is either present or it is not — and philosophical approaches have no place in making that determination. The ID folks can either develop the math, science, and reason necessary to reasonably infer or they can’t. Whether we *like* the design (can reconcile it)is irrelevant to the scientific question. That’s why Attenborough’s approach is misguided and essentially irrelevant. To use SETI as an example, if a designed message is detected from a distant source, it won’t matter whether we are impressed/like/dislike the content of the message. ID deserves to operate in the same way. It shouldn’t have to also address silly questions like the eye worm of Africa.

  15. 15
    Timaeus says:

    Andrew:

    I read some of Attenborough’s comments on evolution, and they are astoundingly shallow. But then, that is par for the course among prominent public figures who endorse Darwinism based on very little knowledge.

    T.

Leave a Reply