…are related: possibly in an evolutionary way.
David Davis
Sir David Attenborough, being old and therefore in possession of the facts, probably knows about the coming Endarkenment. Apparently he is in receipt of hate-mail, for allegedly “defending” Charles Darwin and the rather poorly mis-named “theory of evolution” in a BBC prog to be transmitted on Sunday.
It is at least 99.99% certain that the planet is astonishingly old, and that diversity and shape of all creatures has altered over tremendous spans of time, so that those that live now are adapted to the external conditions. Because mathematically nothing at all is truly impossible (that is to say, an event’s probability is actually the rational number zero) given enough time and dice-throws, there may be at some time in some place in the Universe a creature called “God”, which proceeds to create – in six days – (a rush-job?) a populated world full of humming-birds and neopastorally-ecstatic human individuals, and without parasites or mosquitos. But Attenborough and I, and maybe also Richard Dawkins, would state this to be highly improbable.
Now to hate-mail. There may be for example an equal degree of hate existing in the minds and hearts of both “Darwinists” and “Creationists”: but I doubt it. For one thing, this is a field of endeavour where “The Science” (terrible phrase) is truly settled. I say this in order to see whether I get hate-mail either from paleobiologists or from creationists. Whereas “Darwinists” are in general rational individuals used to civilised argument and the informed defence of a position with fact, I suspect “Creationists” rely on what they’d term “Faith”. Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. But the evidence that God cobbled the earth together in six days, around 6,000 years ago, is scanty at best.
The sorts of people who send hate-mail are those generally with no evidence for their position, but whose world-view is utopian and ideal-driven. For example I think here of socialists, the sort that are not as successful as Polly Toynbee and without her journalistic outlets for their ire: also of “animal rights” “campaigners”. There are of course other kinds, mostly on the left. Whether there is also a connection with the fact that they have very little to do, and lots of time to scratch their own arses, may be relevant. Tere seem to be very few such people on the Classical liberal wing of politics.
If there is a connection developing between the left’s hate-mail-generators and “Creationists”, I think we ought o find out. Both strands of pre-capitalist-idealism will lead civilisation, on purpose, to disaster.
UPDATE1:- I have unashamedly lifted part of The Landed Underclass’s almost simultaneous post to ours, and it’s below. I did wonder in fact whether to discourse in this post about The Nature Of Evil and where God fits in regarding Evil’s continued existence, but forbore this time:-
It seems that nowadays one demonstrates one’s godliness and piety not by acts of charity, humility, contemplation, prayer, etc. but by screaming for the head of anyone who expresses any view that one can, by whatever theological manipulations, deem ‘offensive’.
If I were Mr Attenborough, I’d go to see my producer and insist that the theme music for my programme were changed to:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
[Python, source typos corrected]
“Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. ”
Is this stated with ambiguous irony? If not: ???
No Paul, I mean it absolutely.
I just womdered if you were analying my rather poorly-contructed prose, or questioning my faith, as a scientist, in God and the fact that His Glory will be revealed to us, when we fully understand what was, is and shall be in His mind. That was all.
Sorry, I meant “analysing”
You see, I dispute that the act of “creation” had to be 6,000 years ago and take only 6 days. He could do it in any timescale which He wanted, and He had (has) only to think it, or conceive it, for it to be so.
The fact that He took 14 billion years has still to be answered.
In fact, Darwin might have revealed what God is actually up to.
Attenborough would not get hate mail from me. I leave that sort of petty activity to the childish evolutionists who cannot abide seeing their faith opposed. Those who send such stuff may be religious, they certainly aren’t Christian.
But the fact is, he is wrong. Evolution is unscientific. But I accept that it is the only way for those who do not want to believe in God to get around the problem of origins.
We are here. So, something must haver happened in the first place. Either there was nothing, or God created everything. The problem is resolved in an simple math equation. 0 + 0 = ? If an evolutionist, everything. If a mathematician, it equals 0. Nothing. Zilch. Zero.
It is a scientific impossibility to get something out of nothing. Not even a big bang.
So why call anyone names if there theory does not add up?
Evolution is based on science. Take ur blinders off
Personally, I’ve resigned to the fact that no one here saw whatever happened happen, and while one set of guesses may be more reasonable than others, the issue itself is rather immaterial. Its only side-effect of any importance is, as some would say, how we value life and the world around us. There are many on all sides of the issue tend to be imbalanced in one way or another on the value of both.
I’d agree with Pete that the sort of people who send hate-mail are rather poorly adjusted individuals whose religion hasn’t taught them to love other people as they love themselves – and thus one I’m not particularly interested in.
Pete Hodge:
There was no “Big-Bang” — see Eric J. Lerner, “The Big Bang Never Happened.”
The Universe is infinitely old, infinite in all directions. It is eternal. Some people cannot tolerate infinities. So they rely on absurd “limiting stories.” The origin of a lot of this is Mach’s Positivism, which stipulates that you cannot discuss what is not “observed.” This became popular when the Universe was believed to extend no further than the Milky Way.
The question then arose, as to why the Universe did not self-gravitate inwards. The response was that it was expanding, or was on the cusp of contraction. It’s been downhill since then.
In 1440, Nicolas of Cusa, Cardinal proposed that out planet circled the sun; that the sun was just another star; that there were other planets circling other stars; and that some of these other planets were inhabited, in some cases by intelligent beings like ourselves.
The Copernicans don’t tell you that…
Tony
Sam
Don’t classify a faith simply by the attitudes of some that hold to that view. Some of those who would claim to be Christian embarrass me. As I have often said to evolutionists who simply want to rubbish anyone who disagrees with them, I respect your right to believe what you do, though I might disagree with you. All I ask is that you respect my and others who share the same view in the same manner. But what I find is that our intelligence is ridiculed, even such supposedly intellects as Richard Dawkins can only insult and disparage those who do not share his view.
Oh, and Tony Hollick, as I underdstand my limited physics, matter is not eternal.There had to be a beginning at some time in the past, regardless of which world view one takes of origins.
On one occasion a scientist, not a creationist, challenged some aspect of Darwinian evolution. Dawkins response was to call him a creationist.
Pete Hodge:
Matter is eternal, although its form may change. The evidence for a Ballistic Theory of Light, whereby photons are particles, have mass, and are comprised of much smaller positively and negatively charged particles (electrinos and positrinos) is increasingly overwhelming.
Quantum Chromodynamics is simply wrong. (There is an interlock between QCD and Big Bang theory.
Once you treat light as matter, having mass, momentum, susceptibility to gravity and so on, with its velocity subject to Galilean Relativity, a whole bunch of oherwise insoluble problems are neatly solved. See for example Pair Production and Annihilation.
Read Professor R. A. Waldron, “The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light: A Critical Review” [1977].
Dare to use your own intelligence!
Tony
http://www.STARGATE.uk.net/dynamics.txt
Pete, I think you and I agree on more than you’d guess 😉
I’m merely disillusioned with people’s hypocrisy, as demonstrated in hate-mail among other things. I don’t write off a set of beliefs and principles based on its (claimed) participants.
I do, however, conclude that such people – who do not live by what they claim – actually believe something different. Thus whatever it is that they actually believe, bearing fruit in things like hate-mail, is what I prefer to distance myself from.