Comments:British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough receives hate mail from creationists
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
hate mail is good man that means people are waching --126.96.36.199 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sir David has been on the air for over 50 years and, in no small part, I think he has been at the forefront of banishing the creation myth within the UK. If I understand correctly, both the Church of Scotland and the Church of England accept evolution as scientific fact. With programmes like Life on Earth as centrepieces of the BBC schedule there was not much they could do. All the evidence was presented in a compelling and highly accessible visual format. "It's a lie! God did it" is kinda a pathetic argument.
- Yes! if it wasn't for him the population would know a lot less about the world around us --188.8.131.52 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Who are these people who send him hate mail? Have American evangelists parachuted a crack squad of Creationist ministers into the UK? Are they engaged in a plot to convince the populace to get satellite TV so they can watch Fox? Or are these menacing letters being sent internationally? If so, Gordon Brown should label the authors as terrorists. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, he doesn't understand the scientific definition (or variety of definitions) of the word "theory." If you use the pedagogical definition, you're really saying that it's been confirmed repeatedly. Wtachi (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Many naturalists - and many other people too - do indeed believe that evolution has been confirmed repeatedly. Redvers (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- In practicality, the scientific use of the word theory means "proven to be fact to within a shadow of a doubt". Saying "theory" is therefore exactly the same as saying "natural law". Which is why it really ticks me off that people say "Superstring Theory". It isn't a theory! It is a *model*! Gopher65talk 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Evolution proven? Man eats God? 
Personally, I agree with Attenborough, and Darwin's Bulldog, evolution is proven. There are examples such as the industrialisation of the UK, and increased pollution, where moth species went from being white to black to avoid predators. As industry cleaned up, the moths changed back to white. Then viruses, they have been observed evolving under the microscope. Or the fossil record, all the evidence of intermediate species between man today and an ancient creature similar to modern apes. "God is in the gaps"? Nope, it is Dawkins' blind watchmaker.
The nonsense from the creationists is just, well, mind boggling. The Earth is only a few thousand years old? We've observed the birth of alien solar systems through the Hubble telescope. How far back in time we can see because of the speed of light makes a mockery of the assertion. Letting them stand with their fingers in their ears and their eyes tight shut going, "la la la! I can't hear you! God did it!" is not an option. If they were saying the tooth fairy was watching their every move and would judge them when they died, they'd get locked up.
Sir David Attenborough is welcome to his views. His programmes over the years have been instructive and interesting. The BBC's Planet Earth series was exceptional. But despite his constant references to evolution having done this or that, they left more questions than answers. As for some, who probably claim to be Christians sending hate mail, this is terrible. I do not recognise this type of Christianity, certainly not from biblical teaching. Everyone is allowed their point of view, sadly not if you believe in creationism, but because creationists are subjected to reams of hate mail, insults and abuse, we rejoice to be considered worthy to be in such a position. We would never dream of returning like for like. It is a little ironic that the source of the complaints of hate mail to Sir David is also the same source that causes such hate mail to those who do not share their views. On behalf of all biblical Christians I would like to apologise to Sir David. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete Hodge (talk • contribs)
- I would not advocate anyone sending hate mail. I am, however, with Dawkins on this; the creation myth is just that, a myth. Anyone adhering to it is deluding themselves in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Taking the bible literally, and as the word of God? That's the act of a fool as it is the work of human authors and editors; many of these people had an agenda and their own interests at heart.
- Christianity? It's a 2000-odd year old protest movement claiming that a civil rights activist was nailed to a cross for suggesting people be nice to each other more often. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)