I’ve just seen one of the funniest moments on T.V. in a long time.
Who would have thought in this day and age (with the political correct crowd running things ) that they would show a debate on the BBC about whether religion and Darwins Theory of Relativity could co-exist.
They had a representative from each faith (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Creationists etc…) and a bunch of scientists, and a studio audience. All good so far!
I then actually heard, with my own ears, the Muslim representative try and explain that we share the same DNA with chimpanzee’s and all the various evolutionary apes because god made us all almost the same. Oh, but that’s not the funniest part!!! She was then called “Intellectually Lazy” :w00t: by one of the scientists, who then went on to explain his theory on it all. (the way science has proved the earth and humans evolved etc…)
Some bloke in the crowd asks “Is this the arrogance of science?” tho which he replies “I’m allowed to be arrogant, because I’m right!!!” :w00t:
I nearly spat my cornflakes out!
So, let’s see how many complaints are made by the usual suspects, by monday morning!
And before anybody jumps down my throat for being ignorant or finding it funny, I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, and am now an Atheist!
I missed that, but then saw some of the debate about the BNP that presumably followed. I am sure I heard the BNP guy describe a mixed race kid as “half chinese and half human” but nobody seemed to pick that up so I might has misheard, or maybe everyone else thought they must have!
BTW, I wasn’t eating cereal, but I did nearly choke on crumpet!
I happen to watch that program, i think that science believer showed some religious faith in science.
Darwin was a great thinker, that doesn’t mean his followers and fans are thinkers, they can be blind followers too. so in that sense, they can make darwinism a religion. In the same way, the group shouting slogans of individualism or liberalism can behave like religous fanatics in suppressing individual spirit.
Just watched it and agree it was funny. Strange conclusion to the debate though- they seemed to agree to disagree- that science and religion can live together but not mix. I find this odd, after all Darwinism explains the evolution of humans as ‘rational’ self-aware creatures. The obvious reason for our ‘success’ is our ability to communicate most effectively in the destruction of any competitors that would threaten our primacy. If homo sapiens hadn’t usurped neanderthals, homo erectus etc. and if they were still extant there is no reason to think that they would not be capable of rational thought and self-awareness as we are. In fact who is to say that other animals aren’t capable of rational thought but we have no way of knowing unless they can communicate it to us…
Obiviously leaning this thoughout A levels and my degree, i can come to realise that Darwin is a more plasiable theory - but as a scientist… you never say a theoy is EVER correct. Other wise, we don’t choose to challenge existing theorys, and science doesn’t evolve.
I think it was Einstein that said, the more he came to understanding his work, the more he came to believe that there is a GOD.
A few years ago in “New Scientist” i don’t know if any one remembers the church came back with a “improved” theory of intellgent design. And in states of America, you had to teach both theorys (some big uproar of the whole subject).
I think you can interlink the two subjects, as i had a very religious frined doing a biology degree. Poeple may have their own opinions based on their own uynderstnading on both sujects. However, there may be some higher power… i think the Bible and other religious books are very contridicting within themselves!! You can beleive in one and not the two.
I take the agnostic line personally, even if god did exist how could you possibly fathom it?
God is a very human construct really, we simply need to believe that just as you or I have a father, there is another one out there in heaven somewhere looking down on us and looking after us.
Which is fine, but following that line of thinking (i.e. we needed a ‘creator’ to create us) you can see that it’d be necessary for someone to have created ‘God’ just as we needed him to create us! It’s at that point the idea of God seems a little improbable as we notice that it would require an infinite lineage of creators.
I think it’s ultimately just wishful thinking on our behalf really, man creates God in his own image and then tries to gain power by encouraging faith in him and indoctrinating people with all kinds of social taboos in the name of religion to keep us all in line.
At the end of the day, given the war, tensions and strife religion causes in the world, I’d have to say God is anti-human really.
Personally I hold very little respect for the religious, their self-righteousness is vulgar. Too many use their religion simply to gain power and maintain it.
Einstein might have been a genius but that doesn’t mean he was right about everything!:w00t::D’Intelligent Design’, wasn’t that invented by author Douglas Adams- the Swedish coastline apparently being designed by a character called Slartibartfast. Funny idea. But as Slartibartfast said: “Perhaps I’m old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what’s actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, “Hang the sense of it,” and keep yourself busy. I’d much rather be happy than right any day.”
Good quote. I’ve always had a soft spot for Slartibartfast. Africa would have been so much more intersting with fjords and such a shame he got laid off during the creation just when things were evoloving so nicely.
I don’t give a sh*t about which theory is right or wrong. We are where we are.
I just find the intollerence of both sides to the others points of view so sad.
I’m sympathetic to mystical religion e.g. the Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics - plus the Bhuddists and Hindu Jains - they seem to have a subtle and clever appreciation of spirituality, creation and mans place in it.
What I cannot hack is religious fundamentalists who take the word of their books literally - you would have to be either ignorant/mad to take that position.
A lot of the stuff physicists are coming out with today sounds as fanciful as a lot of religion - e.g. that the universe is a hologram - that a thing can be in two places at once - but at least they have to prove this theoretically before they can publish - unlike the talmud, bible or koran etc .
On the other hand - I can’t work out their physics equations so I just have to take their word for it and put my ‘faith’ in their findings. :blink:
) that they would show a debate on the BBC about whether religion and Darwins Theory of Relativity could co-exist.
PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION:
