Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God
guardian.co.uk ^ | Jan. 27, 2009 | Riazat Butt

Posted on 01/27/2009 10:41:55 AM PST by smokingfrog

Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Attenborough went further in his opposition to creationism, saying it was "terrible" when it was taught alongside evolution as an alternative perspective. "It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ... Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Chit/Chat; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: attenborough; attenboroughstupid; countdown2zotstasy; creationists; darwin; evolution; evolutionisatheory; hate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last
To: Marie2
Dear Marie2,

Thank you for the lengthy reply!

"...claims to be...", "...ascribed to...", "...said to have uttered...", "...said to have written down..."

I think that I understand. This can all be summed up under "legend has it."

And Joshua's alleged authorship of the last portion of Deuteronomy? I take it that it is "widely assumed" or "inferred."

You may take me to task for "splitting hairs," or accuse me of being argumentative, but I sincerely believe that it is useless to discuss the authenticity and thus legitimacy and credibility - let alone the validity and/or bindingness - of these writings if something as fundamental as their authorship is in dispute.

Thanks anyway!

Regards,

121 posted on 01/28/2009 11:22:07 AM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
“brainwashed”

Better than having one’s brain dirtied.

how superior of you(sarc).

122 posted on 01/28/2009 11:41:33 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

No - it would deny the particular interpretation of Scripture that you subscribe to.


123 posted on 01/28/2009 1:53:40 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Perhaps using the example of God allowing a mans entire family to be destroyed to prove a point to Satan isn’t the best of examples?


124 posted on 01/28/2009 1:57:01 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

It all boils down to whether you believe what Jesus had to say, or you don’t.


125 posted on 01/28/2009 3:02:14 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

The particular interpretation of Scripture that I subscribe to is: It’s true.

I don’t think it’s that particular.

Start in with higher criticism, positing that some of it may be untrue, or uninspired, or mistaken, and you can have a ton of interpretations. Hey, you could pick and choose! Keep the stuff you like, question that stuff you don’t. Every man his own arbiter of right and wrong.

Just like Satan said in the Garden.


126 posted on 01/28/2009 3:05:14 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

I do think the basic need is to decide whether or not it is true.

Once you have a couple of people, or a group of people, who agree that the Bible is true - as long as they are honest about it, and not playing semantic or “gotcha” games, but are really trying to interpret it - you will find the truth.

God gave us our intellect as a tool. But it is not God. It is important to keep in mind that our intellects can be totally off. One could point to a myriad of examples from history, where extremely intelligent people have made terrible, serious errors.

I don’t think you need to interpret Scripture in the “light of modern knowledge.” I think you need to interpret the “light of modern knowledge” in the light of Scripture.

In all things, Christ must have the pre-eminence. And we know of Christ, who He is, what He expects, etc., through his revealed Word, the Bible. So, where “modern knowledge” and Scripture contradict, I stick with Scripture.

That doesn’t mean I check my intellect at the door. I just keep it in its proper place.


127 posted on 01/28/2009 3:10:05 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
That's right. Our intellects may be totally off. Yours as well as mine.

Psalm 90:4 states: "A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

Second Peter 3:8 amplifies this with: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

God's sense of time is not man's sense of time. Since the creation of man is the last act of creation, the time before man was measured and kept by God. Therefore the creation may well have taken more than 6 Earth days. It may have taken billions of years.

I don't need to deny either the Bible or modern science. Maybe my intellect has led me astray. But, by the same token, yours might have also. Or we may both be wrong. If misunderstanding -- even an honest misunderstanding -- of scripture is a sin, then I'm sure everyone of us is guilty.

Whatever the case, you can no more separate your intellect from your understanding of the Bible than you can separate yourself from God's creation. Even faith is the intellectual decision to trust in the Lord, despite what might raise doubt.

128 posted on 01/28/2009 4:46:20 PM PST by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

I understand that God transcends time. I also understand that He communicates clearly.

“Day” means “day” throughout Scripture. It doesn’t suddenly mean “epoch” in the one area we are uncomfortable with it. To say so is intellectually dishonest, I think.

I could understand your analysis if the Hebrew word for “day” meant different things throughout the Old Testament. But no one even tries to say it does. Except in Genesis, where we don’t like it.


129 posted on 01/28/2009 5:31:51 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

Also, I don’t think you need to deny all modern science to embrace Scripture as the true, inspired word of God. True science, proveable science, does not contradict God’s word.

For example, my son believes God created the earth in six days, and all very good. He also has a Physics degree from UCLA and works in his field. There is no contradiction.

Many active, well educated, respected and employed scientists reject evolution as a theory.


130 posted on 01/28/2009 5:33:49 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
“Day” means “day” throughout Scripture. It doesn’t suddenly mean “epoch” in the one area we are uncomfortable with it.

Genesis 1:5: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

That's two different meanings of "Yom" in one verse. God called the light "day," as differentiated from night. And the period of light in a 24-hour day is less than 24 hours.

Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

Only heaven was created on the second day and earth on the third. Therefore "day" (and yes, it's the same Hebrew word, "Yom") means at least two separate days here.

131 posted on 01/28/2009 7:22:36 PM PST by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Perhaps using the example of God allowing a mans entire family to be destroyed to prove a point to Satan isn’t the best of examples?

It is if you have more than a surface understanding of the book...
132 posted on 01/28/2009 9:23:12 PM PST by Antoninus (America didn't turn away from conservatism, they turned away from many who faked it. - Mark Sanford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches
It is not just a question of deciding whether the Bible is true. We also have to decide what it says. The medieval Jewish sage, Rashi, who the Jews revere to this day, wrote that Genesis does not tell of creation in the order that God did it, because it says, "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” before it says God created water.

Rashi, like a lot of people, has made a simple mistake: that the "introduction" to any body of work must correlate temporally with the body of work that is to follow.. That is, since the introduction comes first, then all the information therein must necessarily happen before the story actually starts to unfold in the main body of work.

The Bible, like any other book, also has an introduction, and the part that Rashi cites is within this introduction. I'm not saying that Rashi's theory is wrong, or, that I agree with it. Only that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion is seriously flawed, and in a word, useless.

133 posted on 01/28/2009 9:51:27 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

“Day” doesn’t mean “epoch.” It means “day.”

Believe otherwise if you like. You seem to intent on believing this. Why? Why not just accept the word of God for what it says? This is not a complex passage.


134 posted on 01/28/2009 10:46:39 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

“”...claims to be...”, “...ascribed to...”, “...said to have uttered...”, “...said to have written down...”

I think that I understand. This can all be summed up under “legend has it.””

This is historical scholarship. Analyze any document that is thousands of years old. What can you say about it? You have no video, no audio, no living eyewitness. So you look to other recorded history to corroborate, to archeaology, to ancient manuscripts, etc.

What does your disputation prove? Are you trying to assert that the Old Testament was written hundreds of years after the life of Jesus? Or that the New Testament was? No honest scholar, Christian or not, would take you seriously. We all know that the Bible was completed within a hundred years’ of Jesus’ resurrection. The last books were written by apostles who were His contemporaries. No credible scholar refutes that.

Now, whether this is the word of God or not, that has been disputed since the beginning of time. It was Satan himself who asked Adam, “Yea, hath God said?”


135 posted on 01/28/2009 10:52:18 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Amen! It also contradicts scripture which tells us that death itself did not exist before the fall. That is why I cannot understand people who call themselves Christian and still adhere to evolution.

There is only a contradiction if you believe that the "death" referred to is a cessation of bodily function. Throughout the Bible, "death" is used to refer to spiritual death and separation from God -- Jesus' promise of eternal life is not one of never-ending bodily life on Earth.

136 posted on 01/28/2009 11:04:48 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

How is my understanding incorrect?

Did God allow his family to be killed or not?


137 posted on 01/29/2009 3:36:19 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
How is my understanding incorrect? Did God allow his family to be killed or not?

The point of the book of Job is that we, finite humans with our finite brains, are not capable of understanding the will of an Almighty and infinite God.
138 posted on 01/30/2009 8:15:25 AM PST by Antoninus (Obama: "Lucravi." -- Conservatives: "Vae victis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

That’s hardly a convincing “point”. Socialists use the same “point” to argue the superiority of central planning.


139 posted on 01/30/2009 9:36:34 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

Whomsoever shall say ‘thou fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire....


140 posted on 01/30/2009 9:38:53 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson