The Genius of Charles Darwin
19 August 2008
I watched the last (I think) episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin last night. I thought it was really good, even though I have my reservations about Richard Dawkins — I find his atheism a wee bit too strident. However (or ‘but’), what was most terrifying about that documentary was the absolute refusal by creationists to accept that the science of evolution is rigorously tested as a scientific theory, and the Bible is a book of stories and parables* (that British chemistry teacher who is convinced that our planet is 6,000 years old was the best example). Apples and oranges, in other words.
Why evolution is considered bleak and depressing is also beyond me; I think the adaptations living creatures make to survive and thrive are absolutely astonishing, mind-bogglingly cool, amazing. Whether or not there is an equilibrium of sorts in nature that causes creatures to evolve, and therefore ending at the same point, this is still evolution. We obviously don’t understand everything about the world around us, and it’s very exciting, don’t you think, to explore all these possibilities**?
* Practically everyone who reads this must know by now that I went to a strict convent school for 11 years and did the Sunday school and catechism thing for a really long time, too. Religion and science always occupied discrete areas in my thinking and understanding of the world (although at one time I did hypothesise that the Bible was a very broad interpretation of human history). I couldn’t articulate it then, but I think I always knew that religion was allegory and science was education. I don’t think I’m an atheist, because I’m more concerned with the here and now (i.e. our society and our place in the physical world), I’m not that bothered if there is a god or not.
** At a historical and scientific level, not unsubstantiated claims in a book.
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yup, I believe I understand what you mean. Dawkins is just about as scary as the creationist he confronts.
My own journey in life has taught me that gods do not affect my life. I have no beliefs regarding gods. Yet, I am not an atheist in the traditional sense. I prefer not to have a title, though I've seen terms like nontheist or unatheist. Also, people who believe in atheism seem to inherently preclude any acceptance of any thing supernatural, which is not what the term atheist really means.
Since I experience supernature (at times these experiences are in no undeniable terms), I do find the likes like Dawkins to be just as annoying as creationist.
Comment by fcsuper — 20 August 2008 @ 3:52 am
I don't think Dawkins is annoying, but I do think he has gone a little too far in being a big A atheist. God doesn't have to be an entity — just as the devil is in the details, god is in nature. And is not something to worship!
I agree – gods do not affect my life in the slightest!
Comment by Andrea — 20 August 2008 @ 12:46 pm