Posted on 02/09/2009 8:43:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
...Sir David, 82, said the devastation of the environment has its roots in the first words that God supposedly uttered to humankind, as detailed in Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
An atheist raised in an academic, non-religious family, Sir David said Genesis peddled untruths about how animals and plants appeared on earth and was also at the root of why there was now serious environmental degradation due to the greedy overexploitation of the earth’s natural resources.
“The influence of the Book of Genesis, which says the Lord God said ‘go forth and multiply’ to Adam and Eve and ‘the natural world is there for you to dominate’, [is that] you have dominion over the animals and plants of the world,” Sir David said.
“That basic notion, that the world is there for us and if it doesn’t actually serve our purposes, it’s dispensable, that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the land’s surface.
“Of course it’s a gross oversimplification, but that’s why Darwinism, and the fact of evolution, is of great importance because it is that attitude which has led to the devastation of so much, and we are in the situation that we are in,” he told the science journal Nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
ping!
Thought you might be interested...
One of the greatest sins of man was his creation of atheism.
Why does anyone pay any attention to people who don’t have any real idea about the original creation of life or time? Atheists like to boast they somehow have the answers but they know nothing more than their own set of beliefs. Darwinism doesn’t in any way explain the ultimate questions. It merely explains the adaptation of plants and animals to their environment. That’s the extent of it.
These passages refer to agriculture and animal husbandry. Does Sir David advocate a reversion to the state of nature?
What an idiot. Given the devastation of their countries by the CPUSSR and Red China.
Good article. Attenborough has achieved much, is a brillian man, but is totally clueless on the idea of dominion as expressed in Genesis. God placed us on earth to be good stewards of his gift, not to trash it.
Atheism is a religion in it's own right. Have you ever tried talking about traditional religions to an atheist? Whooo, they can be more militant and intolerant than the worst theists.
I'm reminded of the Nobel prize winner Paul Dirac who was such an outspoken atheist that his colleagues would joke: "There is no god and his prophet is Dirac."
I spent 15 years in the environmental business. There are a lot of people who believe that humanity is a blight on nature and that the world would be better off without humanity. Attenborough himself is a staunch supporter of population reduction. I've had to deal with a great many ultra-greenies and have been told many times that the ideal population for humans on the earth is around a million -- preferably all on one continent so that we don't contaminate the other continents.
Nice article. Also the linked article in the first paragraph: “Famous Evolutionist Told to “Burn in Hell” is very well written and argued.
That’s true. Even if we find out how primitive RNA originated, that still won’t be the final answer to the origin of life. The universe is a very complex place full of unlimited new things to discover.
They are trying their best to use evolution to disprove God but that isn’t even logical.
The communist, aggressively atheistic countries have had among the worst environmental records, and they certainly didn’t get their principles from Genesis. Attenborough’s a very smart man, but like a lot of atheists he can.get obsessive, turn into a one-theory-to-explain-everything maniac, attributing every problem in the world to religion (”My goldfish died and I know it was religion done it!”). Like a lot of those evos who are also atheists, he overestimates the potential of evo-thought to improve our lives (”If everyone accepted evolution, my goldfish would still be alive!”).
Of course, the ideal one million people would all be like-minded greenies, we are talking about an ideal world here. Just imagine it, one million vegans living in caves, huts, whatever, so long as it doesn't hurt the environment. No cell phones, no transportation besides feet, no Starbucks, etc. - they wouldn't survive one year!
Personally, I liked them better with Peter Gabriel.
The irony of this idiot is that he never even considers the absurdity of his own position.
If evolution is indeed that origin of life, then only the fit survival, so why should we bother preserving the environment and care for other species? If they don’t survive, they’re weren’t fit to.
It’s the Biblical account that actually requires Man to use nature but not abuse it, because we were given the task of being its care taker.
You’re thinking of his brother Richard who is an actor/director.
Yet another scientist who shows his ignorance on religion.
One day they complain about religionists doing science, the next day they make the same error in reverse.
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.