4thought.tv

This makes me feel happy. It reinforced what I already believed.

It helped me understand the speaker's point of view.

I have a very strong faith in God...and in science too...to be honest I don't know anyone who believes in Biblical Creationism in the literal sense...I think that among religious people....belief in Biblical creationism is extremely unusual and is unrepresentative of the majority of believers. Even the Vatican has accepted evolutionary theory has it not?

It reinforced what I already believed.

Alanna Maltby portrayed the only logical viewpoint foir anyone who is in the least bit informed. Religion needs to take a back seat; we need a totally secular society.

It reinforced what I already believed.

This makes me feel angry. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

Did Alanna actually know that the question was "Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?", as she seemed to be answering "is there space for creationism in science?" instead.

Why is the possibility of God and Darwinism mutually exclusive? The idea of God as a deity is one that is easy to reject in this context, but if the concept of God is wider, more of a universal force, than there is no concrete evidence to suggest God does not exist, or exists for that matter. Therefore, I can understand why a scientist can be Agnostic - but Darwinism does not seem to me, to constitute proof of a non-existence.

It reinforced what I already believed.

Good on you Alanna, not enough people willing to speak up about atheism. No place for a god in Science.

The story of creation is clearly not meant to be taken literally. I think it describes mankind's evolution from primitive human to responsible - and therefore accountable- modern human beings. Darwin simply worked out what God has been telling us for millennia.
MB

I think science has or is at least close to trumping Religion. I don't know what this will mean for peoples well being though. The rational scientific world view can be bleak, and studies suggest we are wired for and do need some sort of blind faith. If I thought it would make the world a better place I would abandon my dwindling religious sensibilities for rational, secular humanist point of view. But will we all just become followers of Dawkins et al instead ??
Its hard to say, but moderate religious ideas are looking increasingly quaint and creationism doesn't really merit much discussion it's so ludicrous.

I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

It is a misconception that the bible limits the earth to 6000 years old and points to a literal (24HOUR) 6 day creation. The origional hebrew word used 'yo-hm' just refers to a time period! So many biblical sceptics refer to this common (mistaken) belief as if that is what the bible actually says. It annoys me because this misleads other people who do not know either way; and gives them an unjustified biased view before any personal research has been done.

Someone intelligent.
YAY!

Many Christians like me are happy to accept scientific explanations of the natural world. The Creationist movement is very new to the Uk and should be treated as myth and not taught as science despite the fact that it upsets many Muslims as well as fundamentalist Christians to dismiss it. Belief in God is about our spiritual side. Ideas such as transcendence, love, empathy and morality are part of belief systems and are difficult, if not impossible, to measure with any scientific methods currently available. Though science and belief in a God are different, any intelligent adult can happily embrace both. I am a regular churchgoer, yet I have an constant desire to study science.

This makes me feel angry. It reinforced what I already believed.

The THEORY of evolution is rediculous when you think about it. Darwin made the whole thing up. In the film she said "There is lots of scientific evidence to prove evolution. NO THERE ISNT. People and schoolchildren are taught it as a fact. We are living on a dying earth. We did not and will not evolve. I believe Jesus died so that we could go to heaven.

The beginning of life cannot be studied scientificaly. It happenned in the past and science cannot falsify any theory regarding it. Evolution is a philosophy and should not be taken as fact. Notice how the 'Darwinists' seem intolerant of open debate. They think it is wrong to debate this on Television!

This makes me feel sad.

Sad to hear an intelligent young woman showing an inability to grasp anything of a spiritual dimension. Science explains what we can see, touch, test and analyze and comes up with answers which can be proved or disproved. Darwin says we are descended from apes. Why have we developed so differently then - what about speech, poetry, music, emotion and incredible capability to learn and develop. Could this be the "God gene". The bible tells us that we are made in His image - the Creator. Do all these creative talents refer to the Spiritual content given to humankind? There is more to life that what we can grasp and understand intellectually. This is what so many other scientists have understood and sadly Alanna has failed to grasp.

I am sorry Alanna you should watch 'Quantum Communication' DVD I strongly disagree what you said there according to declassified documents Albert Einstein who we know as a Atheist admit there is a powerful being in the Universe more intelligent of that of man and if you read Dr Bruce H Lipton Book 'The Biology of Belief' you will find that Darwin is mistaken on many things let alone proves he is nothing but a fraud. Here is one final question if Darwin stated that we evolved from Apes as he claims then how come there is still Apes?

It is obvious to many that both the the birth of the Universe 14 billion years ago and Darwin's theory of natural selection hold much more water than many theological teachings on creation, but surely the religious 'commandments' of love, kindness and forgiveness are also essential for the fabric of human development. Could it not be argued the modern church needs to evolve and accept that the world may not have been created according to the Bible, but at the same time Science has to accept that it has not yet disproved that the big bang was not a moment of divine intervention?

This makes me feel sad. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

Every culture and people have a belief in a God/Goddess, that has a direct influence on everthing. I am fond of the Welsh myth called the "The Circles of Being" which states that God is the Universe and also in the atoms that make up the Universe. We are now looking for the Boson-Higgs or the "God Particle", and the speaker says there no room for God in science.

This makes me feel angry. It reinforced what I already believed.

- that evolutionists are too arrogant to believe that there could be a higher power than a human being. I'm so grateful to the God Alanna doesn't believe in - He miraculously healed me (& my mother, who lived another ten years after being healed from Parkinson's and other diseases) transformed my marriage and gives us His peace. I feel sorry for those who have no hope for the future, who don't know for sure where they'll go after they die. If I'm wrong they have nothing to lose - but if I'm right they lose for eternity...

This makes me feel sad.

It reinforced what I already believed.

Well said.

This makes me feel sad.

Alanna just repeated the usual mantra about 'overwhelming evidence'. If only there could be a proper opportunity for those who doubt Darwinism to fully explain their case. The 'overwhelming evidence' looks very different to those who refuse to be intimidated by this kind of mantra but actually examine the evidence with an open mind. Some of this 'evidence' is not disputed and is fully coinsistent with the creationist position. The rest is much more speculative and is not open to direct observation or hands-on confirmation.

This makes me feel agree. It reinforced what I already believed.

Happy to hear a reassuring logical thinkers take on darwin and religion. I completely agree with this girl the first on this topic which hasn't made me angry

I was saddened by tonight's thoughts. To me it is obvious that Darwin was correct. More profound than Darwin, it is the recently learnt origins of matter and the way the universe was formed which indicate that old religious ideas about creation cannot be true. So let us accept those new facts and see where that leaves us.
Does it mean that everything about religion was wrong? Certainly not. The prophets of each religion were good people teaching their followers the best way to live peacefully and giving advice within the limits of scientific knowlege of the day.
So, do we now have all knowlege now? Of course not. We are humans - with human limitations. There may well be concepts and dimensions that we cannot understand. We may not even have all the senses that might be available in our world. Perhaps other animal may have senses and 'paranormal' understanding that we do not.
Despite all the supposed discoveries of the human race we should not feel so superior that dismiss the concept of other levels of conciousness or dimensions that we could call God.
With the great surge in knowledge that has occurred in the past few decades the argument between Darwin and Religion is outdated and, frankly, simplistic. Who says that they cannot both be right?.

I don't understand Alanna's point of view. If life was created by evolution alone ie: by chance man would by now be able to create life. Science has told us that organic matter, in fact all living material is made of a limited amount of elements, these elements combined in there right measures and stages create organic life, but man can put these elements together and make living organisms, but these do not live for long. These organisms are missing a very important element if we can call it that. They are missing Soul, Spirit or life force which keeps these elements alive. Science can not be based on material world only. We Know we do not live in 3 dimensional world we know there are more dimensions that we can not see, this can be proved easily, so if there are more dimensions then why should we not be part of these dimensions. Crystals can be manipulated by thought these basic elements can be made to form images in labs this has been proven, so why does science not try to prove or disprove that a universal consiousness (God if you like) didn't think these crystal forms into creation at the beginning and not 6000 years ago but much further back and Darwin can then maybe claim some credit. But we must not think man was as man is today this like thinking on a purely material level and confuse and make people be fooled in to not accepting what is in plain sight. I ask Alanna and anybody else to read and investigate Charles Wentworth Littlefields book Beginning and Way of life. I do not have the advantage of a lab but I do study this subject both on a material and spiritual level.

Alanna Maltby may know science, but she knows nothing of religion. Religion has nothing to do with creation-in-6-days; that's primitive myth. Religion is knowing God, and that is not incompatible with a Darwinian scientific understanding of how life came to be.

This makes me feel disappointed.

Alanna's argument seemed to assume a theist has to be a creationist - many theists see evolution as yet another illustration of the beauty of God's work. It is clever stuff!

There is not a single word in either Darwin or Wallace's writings about any conflictbetween the theory of evolution and Judaeo/Christianity. Creationism is a fairly recent movement coming from the bible belt of the USA. It is not Christianity. Many distinguished Scientists hgave also been Zoologists and Evolutionists , the lady Biologist might try reading the work of Teilhard de Chardin. I have many Judaeo/Christian friends who are also scientists and who are convinced by Darwin's theory of evolution, who sayu's an all powerdul Creator has to explain the big bang to tiny minds,
pathetic

There is not so much of a gap between Chritianity and Darwin. In the Book of Genesis we were told man was formed by God by taking some damp earth forming it into his own image and breathing on it. Bearing in mind that at the time Genesis was written there was no science so metaphor had to be used instead to explain the mystery to an intelligent but very ignorant audience. Today "earth" would be bacteria and other live micro-organisms; "damp" would be water- H20; "breath" would be oxygen. Together bacteria, water and oxygen would be the basic building blocks of live so beloved by Darwin. Similarly "days" could be years, centuries, aeons of time. The story was the most important message not the specific detail of measurement we employ for our use. Genesis is a simple, understandable and divine explanation of Evolution entirely relevant and comprehensible for the people of its time. How arrogant and ignorant some of us are in our time! tompos

For those who don't believe in GOD. Stop Ihaling my AIR. Look at the fine balance of mixture of gases just a little imbalance can kill you.
Just ponder on how a baby is concieved and who feeds the baby in the womb of the mother. Just these two examples are enough to believe in God.
God's science starts where our science stops. More examples like DEATH and Birth.This makes me happy and believe in GOD.

Thank you Alanna. Spot-on!

This makes me feel puzzled. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

I am both a scientist and a Christian but I do not find this a tension. Alanna rightly says that Darwinism has a logical structure and is easy to understand, but this does not make it true. It needs to be tested against real world evidence - and this is where the problems start! Darwinism can deliver some diversification and limited speciation, but it has never been shown to build complexity or biological information. Alanna is overstating the evidence for Darwinism, and also failing to acknowledge that there are a growing number of biologists who, even if they accept Darwinian mechanisms, nevertheless think that they are not very significant in an evolutionary account of living things.

totally agree with Alanna. I dont know how any religion can square itself with evolution. The sheer tonnage of knowledge we have about this planets existance far outweighs that of any religious scripture.

Blot, Bunyip and Brian. You give good examples of the adaptive nature of religion i.e. you adjust your beliefs in accordance with the advancement of knowledge. This is a human trait, where your religion meets your needs. Individuation of religion provides support to the argument that religion is a human construct.

It reinforced what I already believed.

February the 12th 2009 marked "Darwin's Day" It was the 200th aniversary of his birth.Later in that year (24TH of November )was the 150th aniversary of the publication of "On the origin of the Species " , his famous theory of bioligical evolution via natural selection.
Suppostions
In Darwin's book "On the Original of Species " no less then 800 times he uses phraseslike :"Let us assume ..""or" we may suppose "(H.Y Pickering).He based his ideas on what may not be true.The book was a theoretical treatise ,based based on observations he had made .
By defination a "supposition" is a hyppotheis or idea ,that is,a suggestionn that might be true, or has been accepted on the basis of some evidence but without proof.
On the oher hand the Bible deals with what is true .The phrase re -occurs time ,and time again again "This is what the Lord says".." appers many times in both the New and Old Testaments. MANY HAVE BEEN FULLFILLED TO THE LETTER example Christs Birth, Death,Resurection ,giving precise details 100's of years before the events. If these predictions are true and they are .for they have already been fullfilled .why have doubts that the facts of the biblical creation, which was attested by both testaments and doubt the words of the Lord Jesus CHrist who endorsed the words of the words of creation spoken in the early cahapters of the book of Genesis.
Don't rely on Suppositions but on Certainties!

I don't agree that evolution rules out theism altogether. It is easy to imagine a God who worked "invisibly" behind the scenes to bring all things into being by the evolutionary process. But I do think that is incompatible with the biblical account of creation as recorded in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, which is why I'm a creationist and not a theistic evolutionist.

This makes me feel puzzled.

Why does Alanna Maltby think that a belief in Darwin's ideas is incompatible with believing in God? After all, the Mona Lisa was painted with a brush, but that doesn't stop me believing that Leonardo wielded that brush. Evolution was simply a tool God used to create life as we know it. It doesn't explain him away.

David Tyler looks for a testable process for the relatively recent theory of evolution but he neglects to point out why there has never been a proven reliable test for the theory of a cloud magician who poofed the universe into existence and can spy on me whilst I'm in the bathroom!!

Assumption based on not understanding/knowing , how/why the universe exists is hardly peer reviewd evidence. Neither is circular logic based on ancient text which stated the world was flat and that a talking snake conned a rib woman to eat from a magical tree.

What causes the mutation of the DNA which causes evolution? you may answer that at the moment we dont know. Lets pretend we are 100 years in the future, we now know what causes the genetic mutations. but what causes that? pretend we could answer that question. what causes this? logically this will continue infinitely and we will never know the cause of all causes. Because to our human brain it is inconceivable.. There has to be something more.. I can't think of any name for this except for God. You could argue that one day we will know everything about everything.. maybe we will, but the since science is constantly changing trying to find better models for the things we know i doubt we will.

It reinforced what I already believed.

Although many scientists and anthropologists claim there is proof that humans evolved from apes I have yet to see it although, as a Christian, I would like to question why this issue is taken so seriously. It makes no difference to me whether or not we are a separate species. As far as I am concerned God made me and He loves me. That's enough for me.

Alanna Maltby ought to take a Bible and read exactly what it says. She will find it does not say the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and most christian believers who are scientists find it ridiculous to think intelligent and immensely complicated lifeforms rhat exist on Earth, just came about by chance. They were more likely designed by an intelligent mind. Translating the original text of Genesis direct from Hebrew, it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth became (correct translation, not was) without form and void......"
Alanna Maltby must be informed that most scientifically minded Christians, and there is a whole institute of them at the Moody Institute of Science in the U.S.A. who are far more qualified in the study of evolution and science than Alanna Maltby. I have a collection of 25 films from this institute showing quite clearly aand conclusively why it is totally ridiculous to believe that molten, ridicu;ously hot inorganic material suddenly formed all by itself, complicated and intelligently well designed organic matter, male and female, capble of reproduction!
Who told the honey bee, one of the most advanced forms of life on this planet that a honeycomb of hexagonal design was the strongest and most efficient? Who taught the honeybee how to produve hexagonal cylinders in the honeycomb with the exactly scientifically correct angles to interlock perfectly without the use of geometrical instruments? Who taught the honeybee scouts how to communicate to other bees in the hive the exact direction and location of a food or pollen source and exazctly how much food to take for the journey without any unnecessary wastage? if the bee had to find this all out by chance there would not be any! Sorry, Alanna, but all evolutionists need a psychiatrist, because you have to be crazy to believe the fairy story about evolution. If you want to see films to show you how crazy the evolution theories are I'd be glad to lend them to you.

Facts are just facts, but how you interpret facts depends on what you believe. Firstly, fossils do not prove evolution they only prove that this particular animal died and was buried instantaneously or it would not have fossilized. Fossils, in fact, if anything,prove a world-wide flood such as described in the Bible. If it took millions of years for fossils to have supposedly formed there would not have been a dead carcase left to fossilize especially the dinosaurs where whole carcasses were found buried in many levels of strata as well as standing trees also buried in many levels of strata and fossilised. Secondly, recent genetic discoveries have shown that our genes far from evolving are in fact fast forwarding all life forms to extinction and not to evolution. This is due to the accumulation of mutations received from our ancestors which we caanot rid ourselves of, as well as extra mutaions produced by ourselves suggesting that the early hominids if there were any such were very much healthier genetically than all life forms today. And finally, atheists are the greatest evidence for the existence of God, for if there was no God there would be no atheists. When God created man he wrote in every fibre of his being the truth of His existence as their Creator. That is why all mankind believe in a god of some sort, even the African bushmen and the amazonian Indians who live in terror of this unknown God and are only relieved of this fear when they hear and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Like it or not, man cannot run away from this truth for he cannot run away from himself, so, as St.Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans chapter 1 verses 18-24 in the Bible, he wickedly suppresses the truth changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. And one form of this image is seen in atheism. The sinner can only hide from the truth of God written in every fibre of his being, by denying His existence and becoming an Atheist and the fiercer his atheism, as per Dawkins, the stronger does he feel this truth pestering him so he has to shout louder to keep that truth well and truly suppressed. But he will never succeed for that truth, like a cork in a bottle, will always keep bobbing up causing him continual distress. So Alanna Maltby, your adulation of Darwin is misplaced for you are a blind person being led by a blind person and if you continue to allow Darwin to lead you, then sooner or later you will fall into a ditch as Jesus Christ has warned.Luke 6:39
Far better to have Him who has risen from the dead to be your guide rather than one who has not proved his theory by rising from the dead but still lies in his grave in Westminster Cathedral.

It is not possible to be a true scientist and believe in god/s. Science is about looking at evidence, facts, events, etc and to draw rational conclusions. Laws have to be proved, theories backed with evidence and data.
Religions are based on belief. No religions can give definite evidence, proofs etc. Jeeze they can't even agree amongst themselves.

One does not need God in science. But this is not the real question and it is a real shame that so many people are wasting their time debating this. The Roman Catholic Church, and many other communities of faith, do not look to the Bible to answer any scientific question and never did.

Religion is no substitute for science. But science is no substitute for religion.

The real question is: does one need God as part of a meaningful life? Science certainly does not provide us with any answer to this question. Science teaches us how to make nuclear weapons, not how to use them; it teaches us how to make vaccines, not how to manage or distribute health care. Science cannot answer all our questions - we must turn to the arts and wisdom. Very smart philosophers, who certainly would have accepted fully Darwin's findings, believed in God - philosophers like Spinoza and Hegel. The enduring question is, what does the word "God" mean? It can refer to a character in mythology. It can also refer to a far more complex concept.

But plenty of people at least as smart as Darwin believed in God. The arrogance is that so many people believe that the God of the Creationists is the only God. It is easy not to believe in THAT God. But what about Spinoza's God? Or Hegel's God?

His thought process? You mean the one that focused on God?

"There is no place for God in Science."
Fair enough, science is about the natural world following (or making inferences from) observational reasoning. But following that reasoning ethics, metaphysics, logic, aesthetical judgements (such as literature, music etc) all have no place in science so you can't hold them and Darwinism either.

I feel strongly that Darwin is right in thinking we are all children of Mother Nature. We have evolved over millions of years from being nameless bodies to who we are today. In relatively modern times our consciousness has been determined by our given names at birth. All our early memories and experiences go toward making us who we are by that given name. We are alive and conscious of our names because of our thoughts, our language, and the natural energy that animates our bodies at conception. Our understanding of our situation in the scheme of things is how we interpret what we have learned as young children by ourselves or by others. The whole universe is subject to natural law and we must all abide by that law. I am an Atheist who believes in natural reincarnation in the sense, that when a physical body dies it decomposes because its natural motivating force (life energy) has left for another place. That energy must go somewhere, as does the energy released from a wave that breaks onto a beach after thousands of miles of crossing an ocean. Life and death of a living body, no matter in what form, means nothing to Mother Nature. It is only a means to an end in her cycle of life. Who we are and who we think we are in this life is only possible because of language and thought. Language gives us thought, it makes us conscious of being, and only lasts as long as we are alive. When I die, the energy that motivated my body will leave to motivate another body, whether human or not is not known. This to me is the truth, and it seems to me a natural cycle of life. I do not need a supernatural belief taught to me by others in a faith school as an impressionable child. I came to my conclusion by my own force of mind, because it to me was the most logical conclusion of my thoughts, thoughts that could not be possible without language. People must look to Mother Nature for their answers, as Darwin did, and not to a supernatural God, who cannot be proven to exist.

Alanna Maltby displayed total ignorance or any definition of the word "god" except the very narrow/christian/creationist one, so, in a sense, she is stuck in her own "straw man" argument. The majority of Christians unfortunately take this whole "God" idea literally - and atheists quite rightly reject that view as unrealistic, although they seem not to have the faintest idea of the psychology of liberated and enslaved states of mind, which lies behind the surface of Christianity, and is also found in many other traditions. What I have heard is that we are mostly in an unaware state: we are to varying degrees chasing our emotions and self oriented thought chains. How often have you wished you could turn off the interference in your head? It often stops us feeling calm and joy - but we are addicted. Many people who learn to "let go" say their ego feels less solid, less heavy, and less separate from Life itself. People may have an experience which SOME call "God", "Suchness", "Brahman", etc. but (religious) language confuses the issue into subject and object - which do not exist where there is a continuum. Experiencing is not about belief.