Evolution Fiction

-

This debate took place on Channel 4.

“The Genius of Charles Darwin”

August 2008


C4 Editor said:

Tonight on C4 at 8pm we are showing The Genius of Charles Darwin, the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection presented by Richard Dawkins.

You can discuss the issues and post your comments below


TheReformedPastor said:

Here we go again, yet another attack on Biblical Christianity by Dr. Dawkins - I predict that this series has little to do with Darwin, Darwin is merely the vehicle that Dr. Dawkins is using to attack Biblical Christianity.

I believe that the reason for this is that Dr. Dawkins knows that Atheism is in trouble. After 60 years or so of being the predominant philosophy in this country and having a huge influence over all areas of our lives and public bodies such as Education, Social Services, Penal policy etc, it has totally failed as a philosphy.


1cantell said:

It's not about religion. It's about reviewing facts, checking evidence and coming to conclusions based on what we know.
On that basis religion is a basket case and if we stopped indoctrinating our kids with it - so brilliantly illustrated in tonight's programme -it would wither and die.
Shame about the tooth fairy,too!


MissLittler said:

You are absolutely right, and let us be clear; it most certainly is not about religion.
It is about establishing the facts and coming to a measured conclusion.
This broadcast has yet to produce any new 'evidence' thus far and I have severe doubts if it will in subsequent programs. There is nothing 'brilliant' in 'indoctrinating’ our children that; out of mud came mind!!
And on that basis, bring back the tooth fairy all is forgiven!

Molecular Machine said:

Dawkins is a master at presenting a "Staw Man" argument and then demolishing it! Almost nothing presented in the programme was contrary to the understanding of creationists - save for the introduction of common ancestry, which crept in without firm evidence.
The evidence for 'variation' which was the main thrust of the programme is, of course, undeniable. No creationist I know thinks that all the 'Darwins Finches', for instance, were separate creations!!
The real issues lie ahead, such as the origin of complex cellular information - and life itself - I suspect a Just-So story coming....


mike the h said:

A number of evolutionists have argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Like a lot of Dawkins work the programme was laughable by anyone who has slightly more witt than an ape.


stve said:

Good programme, but nothing new.
The problem I have with Dawkins, as with other evolutionists, is they start from the premise that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. ie. Evolution is a fact therefore God does not exist. Their argument against the existence of God is the contradiction in the Bible about th eorigins of life on earth; that the Bible claims an earth far younger than the evloutionary evidence suggests, means the Bible is incorrect and consequently God does not exist. The Bible was written by people, modified and edited by religious leaders with politcal agendas and consequently may not be an authority on all things. (a different topic). If Dawkins was to argue that evolutionary evidence shows the Bible's account of how or when the world began is incorrect then I could go along with it; but then the evolutionists make this huge leap to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist".

I offer an example. Suppose God, standing on the top of a mountain, pushes a large rock from the top and it rolls down the mountainside. Suppose now that Newton comes along and sees this rock and in his genius, describes why this rock is rolling down the mountain. Dawkins comes along and does a series saying how smart Newton was, the Law of Gravity exists, the evidence is overwhelming; Gravity, not God, is alone responsible for the motion of this rock down the mountain. Therefore God does not exist. How does that follow?

Come on Dawkins; get real. yes, Evolution exists, but how does it follow that God and evolution are mutually exclusive?


Omrow said:

We know that the tale of men emerging from monkeys is only a theory.

In other words, its nothing but a guess.

In schools and universities, it is still taught as a theory and NOT as a fact.

Dr Dawkins has been lying on TV. He said it is a fact.

Many scientists would disagree with him on this issue.

Scientists are divided on the theory of evolution.

This matter is not yet settled.

Many scientists do not accept that we can say for sure that man came from monkeys.

Dawkins is just like a religious fundemantalist who gets carried away by his fanaticism.

Dawkins is overzealous. He is desperate to convert people to accept his point of view.

I think he has degraded himself by not being honest with the public.

Channel 4 program should, therefore, be seen as nothing more than a propaganda campaign led by Professor Dawkins.


Jezzy29 said:

Unfortunately, Omrow, I have been informed by people on here that theory actually means fact in science circles. and fact doesnt have to be proven fact. But don't mention Evolution is unproven because that upsets people. afterall, nothing is proven therefore evolution is just as much fact as gravity.. even though we can see gravity in action every minute of every day... this is all starting to get on my nerves..


Omrow said:

You cannot say nothing is proven by scientists.

Earth is now proven to be round and NOT flat as ancients used to believe.

It is also now proven that Earth goes around the Sun, and that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth.

It is also proven that the Moon is NOT made of cheese.

So, dont try to protect the Evolution Theory by saying it it is not proven because nothing is ever proven. Its a pathetic tactic.


Jezzy29 said:

I don't think my sarcasm came through very well in my last post. I was trying to make the point that comparing the fact of gravity to the theory of evolution is ridiculous because one we can see acting on us every minute of every day and one is something that has evidence but will never be able to prove unless we can travel in a time machine. But scientists are saying that both are fact. Just silliness isn't it?


Omrow said:

No they are not. Scientists are NOT trying to say that monkey theory is a FACT. It is only the likes of Dick Dawkins that preach such rubbish.

Many scientists are sceptical about evolution.

They still catagorise it as a THEORY.

As we all know that "THEORY" is NOT same as a "FACT".

Some scientists write books for schools and universities.

These books say:

Gravity is a FACT.

Moon of Jupiter are a FACT.

Earth's rotation is a FACT.

Evolution is a THEORY.

Even on things like climate change scietists are divided on whether it is fact or a thoery.

American scientists tend to say that there is no global warming. Europeans scientists disagree.

Similary, the monkey theory is causing a big diffrence of opinion among the scientists.

There is no agreement as yet whether human emerged from apes or not.

Until they agree, how on earth can we claim anything for sure on evolution.

I cant put it any simpler than that.


Jezzy29 said:

I'm just telling you what the people on this forum say. I think there is a problem here because scientists have a different definition for 'theory' and 'fact' than we do in general usage.

Have a look at wikipedia.Fact in science is something that has observable evidence, but isn't necessarily proven, theory in science is an interpretation of evidence. Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.

The problem is, the lay person doesnt know this and thinks 'fact' means 'proven fact' when really it means 'there is observable evidence to suggest this'. Therefore, scientists and Dawkins are misleading us.


Omrow said:

There is a BIG difference as to what a THEORY is, and what a FACT is.

Everyone knows. Fact is true. A "theory" MAY be true, or, it may be wrong.

Scientists do not have a different definition as to what a THEORY is.

Lets not confuse the matter.

I always ask this to my university teachers. They say theory is a "hypothesis" that may turn out to be wrong.

Whereas a "FACT" can never turn out to be wrong. It will always be correct.

No matter how much Dr. Dick Dawkins continues to yell, we know the scientists still say that evolution of man from monkeys is a THEORY which has not yet been established as a FACT. It might be proven false tomorrow or in ten years time.


Bloodthorn said:

I don't know why religious people get so upset about evolution. Just because evolution proves that creatures have evolved over billions of yeara it doesn't say that god doesn't exist. I mean come on if your a supreme being immortal and eternal you can surely take the time to watch the evolution of simple creatures on planet earth. As for the religious texts that people keep on saying that they are facts of gods truth remember that they have been written not by god himself but by a mere fallible creature called man.


RDSG said:

I am myself a scientist, and think Darwin was a genius. Even though I agree with Richard Dawkins that it should be taught at schools, I am chocked by the way he attacks religion and tries to force people into his beliefs(atheism).

As a scientist you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being which might be considered a God, and which could exist outside our universe, and could even have played a part in its creation.

Therefore if you cannot disprove the existence of a God scientifically, it is appalling for him to discount it so aggressively. Even worse is the fact that he does not realize himself that atheism is a faith as well.
The only difference is that you believe that there is no God, but you cannot prove it. Whilst other religions believe that there is a God, and cannot scientifically prove it.

Therefore I think it is scientifically incorrect to be so close minded, and to not be open to possibilities which have not been scientifically disproven.

leesparky said:

As a scientist, can you disprove the existence of fairies? Are you in fact, open to the possibility that they exist too????

RDSG said:

Until proof is given that they never existed, I cannot say for certain that they haven't. Although I'm pretty sure they don't have a bank account to store their money, so that they can pay for the kid's teeth. And since there is no evolutionary evidence for any creature resembling a ferry we can deduce that it is highly unlikely they ever exist in our planet.

-