Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God

guardian.co.uk ^ | Jan. 27, 2009 | Riazat Butt

[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."

[chuck_the_tv_out]

[previous post was munged] Best to avoid any labels, since an infinite being would be more different from us than we are from a slab of rock.

Sure, your heart's in the right place, but we were made in God's image, so it's not quite that bad.

It puzzles me that people insist on sticking labels based on human nature onto a Being that is supposedly infinite. Emotions such as “love,” “anger,” and “sorrow” make no sense in an infinite being who exists outside of time.

Again - I agree, because when people say love they tend to be talking about an emotion, but love isn't really an emotion. God knows love better than we do. When we say "God is love", it should be with an understanding that we don't really understand either! Like Paul said, "for now we see as if through a glass darkly"

[absolootezer0]

sorry, i can’t think of a response to that that wouldn’t get removed :)

[alexander_busek]

The first books of the Bible, Genesis through Deuteronomy, were written down during Moses’ time, by Moses.

***

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.

34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

34:7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

34:8 And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

***

So, Genesis through Deuteronomy, were written down [...] by Moses!

Meaning that Moses wrote about his own death and burial, and the mourning which continued for 30 days after his funeral. How edifying!

Regards,

[chuck_the_tv_out]

Genesis 1 is a parable, written so that we can understand WHY things happened.

You are obviously a Christian, so I'm not going to argue over this issue, although I do disagree.

And if you want to say "a day is a thousand years", and take 6 days, make it 6 thousand years, then turn those days each into a thousand years, you get about 2.1 billion years I think

But I think you do Genesis 1 a real disservice to say it's just a "parable about the why", and I think if you read it through a few times meditatively, you would see that

There is also a lot more information that supports creation and discredits evolution than you probably think. I often reccommend creation TV as a starting point: http://www.thestreamtv1.com/welcome_016.htm

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“So, Genesis through Deuteronomy, were written down [...] by Moses!
Meaning that Moses wrote about his own death and burial,”

No one is basing their beliefs on the idea that Moses wrote the entire book. He did much of it. Of course that part was written by Joshua, or a Priest in the time of Joshua.

[Darwin Fish]

Ditto what you said.

[Dutchboy88]

I think we are missing each other in this discussion. My point is that such language is not biblical. If one subscribes to the text, there is no such thing as a random event.

Evolutionists are not content to say that events “appear” random. They require that we acquiesce to their being no such thing as a guided event that to us appears random.

[Darwin Fish]

Of course, if you don’t think God gave us His Word, inerrant and inspired, you can believe anything.

I believe God created evolution, and that there is no "rule book" (bible included) that is literally perfect. They were all written by fallible men.

I believe that you need to look to your heart for answers. Rule books can be a decent guide, but are not, and have never been, perfect.

[Darwin Fish]

Were I to believe in evolution, I would not be believing Genesis, or other references to God’s direct creation of the universe with all creatures within it sprinkled throughout the Bible.

Exactly. I look to the bible sometimes as a guide, but I sure don't believe in Genesis, and a lot of the other stuff, any more than I believe certain Native American tribes who believe the moon is the mother that birthed the earth.

They are all nice tries, considering the primitive lives they led at the time, but it is kind of silly to believe that stuff now, IMHO.

[Condor51]

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."

Ha! What a Dummy.
Everyone knows God didn't create the 'Eye Worm', HIV-AIDS, or even Ebola -- The CIA did. Just like the CIA invented Crack and gave it all to blacks for free.

Sheesh. I thought David Attenborough was smart. But that boy's got to spend some time in Rev Wright's 'church'. That'll get his mind right about god and the evils whitey has perpetuated on the black man.

[hocndoc]

You don’t believe the story of Abraham?

As to the first 3 chapters: consider that Moses told this story to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, after the Lord had show him a fast forward video version of the creation.

It’s obvious that science can tell us more detail as to how the Lord created. And our faith survives literally earth shaking information such as that the earth rotates on its axis and in an orbit around the sun, rather than the sun revolving in an orbit around the earth.

Just don’t leap too far.

[allmendream]

One cannot, in Science, assume that there is a ‘man behind the curtain’ pushing buttons and pulling levers. It is not the prerogative of science to assuage those of weak faith by saying “appears random”, neither is it the purview of those instructing a gambler that the dice or cards “appear random” but are under the control of God. Neither actually adds any usable information content to the subject being discussed, and would only serve to drive away those who do not accept the same religious beliefs as you.

There is a reason why science is science the world wide, but everywhere you go religion is different.

[Antoninus]

No, he simply concluded that whatever created the world is not particularly benevolent. A look at the amount of evil and pain in the world makes that obvious on its face.

Spoken like a true mouthpiece of Satan. Have you read the Book of Job lately?

[steve-b]

Spoken like a true mouthpiece of Satan.

Band Name!

[jwalsh07]

No, he simply concluded that whatever created the world is not particularly benevolent. A look at the amount of evil and pain in the world makes that obvious on its face.

Only to those in love with slavery. Like you and this think skinned fellow.

[jwalsh07]

That would be thin skinned.

[Dutchboy88]

No there is not. The “science” in the case you describe is demanding that there be no reference to a creator. That Creator, conversely, demands that all references to His creation include the proper acknowledgement. Thus, if we acquiesce to your perspective, we are granting “science” the preeminent spot in the universe. That is, its preferences are permitted to set the agenda.

Now, granted, they will win, during this brief period of struggle. Nevertheless, to allow them to “win” by suppressing the proper discussion is not the same thing as saying that evolution is compatible with biblical Christianity.

[allmendream]

Science can only deal with what is measurable and can be compelled to act replicably and predictably. Do you propose that God is measurable, that God can be made to act replicably and predictably?

Science has no mechanism to either include or exclude God. For those of us who are Christians or people of faith (as the majority of scientists in the USA are) it is axiomatic. ALL things in creation are of God. For those that do not share this faith, the data still speaks for itself.

I am not demanding that science be “granted” “the preeminent spot in the universe”; I merely point out that science does what it does, and what it does is science, and science cannot include God and still be science.

[dread78645]

(C) - Man is CURSED. Man is living in a SPIRITUAL reality, and our corporeal existance is merely a shadow of that reality. These illnesses and afflictions are part of that CURSE. We must be REDEEMED from that curse. ...

Hmmm ... I thought Gnostisism was a Christian heresy?

[chuck_the_tv_out]

yeah, I’ve checked your past posts. you systematically spread disinformation.

where I come from, that’s called TROLLING.