The Genius of Darwin

August 3rd, 2008 - 23:17 | 3 comments

Just a heads up for The Genius of Darwin, tomorrow at 2000 on C4. Presented by Richard Dawkins, and beginning the coverage up to Darwin’s 200th anniversary next year, it should be fascinating. There’s no discussion of creationism etc. until the third episode, by all accounts - until then it’s just the utter rockage of Charles Darwin (we atheists worship him, you know) and his theory of evolution. Charlie Brooker has a great intro, too.

-----

3 Responses to “The Genius of Darwin”

1 Joe Fearnley Aug 11th, 2008 at 1:32 am

I find it amazing that RD simply refers to ‘the overwhelming evidence for evolution’ and states that ‘evolution is a fact’ but fails to ever make the distinction between micro and macro evolution. He purposely uses evidence for micro evolution and claims it to be evidence for macro evolution which is quite frankly pathetic for a man of his position.
Micro evolution can be seen at work (every year we have new variants of roses etc.) but the ‘evidence’ for macro evolution (the bit where one ’species becomes something comletely different) is sadly lacking and in fact non-existant. The Bible says that breeding can only happen within a kind therefore a dog will always be a dog (allbeit big, small, fat, thin, fast, slow) but will never be a cat (or anything else) no matter what.

Every single so called ‘missing link’ that has ever been found has been proven to be either a hoax or simply some other form of animal fragment. If we had evolved from apes (or anything else) you wouldn’t be able to dig up the gareden without finding evidence your self. there would literally be billions of example of ‘missing links’ available. To date we have NONE.

The most notable hoax was Piltdown Man, ‘discovered’ in England from 1908 to 1912. This comprised a human skullcap plus the lower jaw of an orangutan, the teeth of which had been stained and filed to make them look human and match the size of the teeth in the upper human jaw. Although the hoax was poorly done, it fooled the establishment and was probably the most quoted ‘evidence for evolution’ for around 40 years, until 1953, when the fraud was exposed.

Another huge hoax field has been the way in which scores of deformed humans were exhibited as ‘apemen’ or ‘apewomen’ in circus sideshows from the early 1800s for over a century, with no known scientific refutation of the frauds so perpetrated.

The desperate need of evolutionists to find a missing link has also contributed to some inexcusably gross scientific boo-boos. The most notable of these was Nebraska Man. A pig’s tooth, found by Harold Cook in 1922, was proclaimed by the eminent evolutionist Dr Henry Fairfield Osborne to belong to the first anthropoid (man-like) ape of America, which he named Hesperopithecus (‘western ape’). The Illustrated London News for June 24, 1922, printed an artist’s impression of the tooth’s owner as an upright-standing apeman, showing the shape of his body, head, nose, ears, hair, etc., together with his wife, domestic animals, and tools.

Darwin himself suggested that his ‘theory’ would be proven or not by the number of missing links that were found or not found. I’m sure if he were around today he would be rethinking his theory and telling RD to sit down and shut up. Something Channel 4 should certainly consider.
2 Andrew Aug 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Thanks for your comment. I recommend you check out this talk origins FAQ, which details 29 evidences for ‘macroevolution’.
3 Jonathan Collins Aug 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Thank God (not that I believe in one) for a thought provoking program. Both Darwin and Richard Dawkins are by most people’s standards controversial; however that doesn’t make their propositions incorrect. It used to be contoversial to believe that the Earth was NOT flat! It is extraordinary that even now in the 21’st century with all the scientific knowledge we have to draw on that so many people retain views that belong in the dark ages.

It was revealing to listen to the views of the children in the program who were retiscent to even consider Darwinian evolution theory lest it clash with the religions chosen for them by their parents. At that age I too had been taught much about the Bible and nothing about Darwin and with semi-religious parents was unsurprisingly in the agnostic camp. When introduced to a high ranking clergyman visiting my school to discuss confirmation I asked him how God had been created. He gave me a knowing smile and told me I was an interesting chap! I was never confirmed.

Whilst the origin of man is not fully understood (if it was there would be no debate!) it is odd that with so much evidence of Darwinian evolution available that it creates such passionate resistance from people like Joe Fearnley. As an Atheist I can understand the desire to hold a set of beliefs that will grant salvation and everlasting life in heaven (it’s more appealing than simply rotting in the ground!). If I could find 10% of the evidence available for Darwinian evolution in a religion that guaranteed me such salvation I would certainly investigate the evidence. To my knowledge there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God or any act of creation of life but as an open minded person I would be interested to hear of any such evidence. I am more interested in seeking the truth than being right.

The evidence is that all creatures including humans are evolving slowly. The larger brain of humans appears to have given them the edge over other life forms in recent earth history. Whilst the sum of human knowledge accumulates exponentially the intellectual ability of the individual appears to be evolving very slowly. The average human would not be able to manufacture a metal spoon from first principles let alone discover evolution!

What Darwin and RD propose is backed by compelling evidence but cannot currently be totally proven. No doubt there will be further twists and turns in the gradual unravelling of the evolution process. There is no evidence (compelling or otherwise) for any other theory such as creationism. Surely any rational human (without a vested interest in a religion or the subjugation it endows on its members) would put their money on evolution? Perhaps the realisation that we may not be as special as we had believed might throw us into emotional turmoil? In the meantime what is there to fear about the likelihood that we are all randomly evolving creatures whose future descendants may just return to the sea , stop talking and live blissfully unaware of the genes they pass on to their offspring (until of course they get bored…) ?

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.