When Richard Dawkins admits the possiblity of intelligent design…

Some time ago I watched a fascinating documentary by Ben Stein about the shocking prejudice existent in universities around the world towards scholars and professors who believe in intelligent design. (Here’s the link for part one of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed )

What astonished me more than anything in the entire film, was when Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins, the world’s most prominent atheist.

Dawkins’ answer to one of humanity’s biggest questions regarding the origin of life was both refreshingly and shockingly honest. While ‘science’ allows us to believe they can explain the existence of the universe apart from God, Dawkins brought to light this fundamental truth. THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW LIFE BEGAN!

When questioned, Dawkins had to concede that it is possible that life on earth may have been designed by another life form of very high intelligence, and that evidence for that designer could be found.

He did go on to qualify that (as he does not believe in any god) this supremely intelligent life form must have somehow evolved (only moving the problem back a step.)

Either way it seems that modern science can offer us these two things about the origins of life: That they have no idea how it actually came about, and that intelligent design is a plausible option that would answer a lot of questions.

What a shame that people who believe in the latter are condemned as un-scholarly, when all that remains for the ‘scholars’ to cling to is the former.

Here is the 2min clip in which Dawkins accepts the option of intelligent design.

Who Tells the Creators of Technology When to Stop?

I’ll admit it. I’m as guilty as the next person when it comes to being glued to my phone. Yes, I’m distressed when I look around at a group of friends out to dinner and see them all on their phones, but what can I say? I do it too.

What really gets me though is that I know I don’t need it. Somewhere, deep in a drawer, is my old Nokia 3315. Gosh I loved that phone. It did everything I needed it to, and for years I refused to upgrade, until eventually I did, because everyone had, and somehow that created a need.

Technology changes lives, saves lives and improves lives, but like many things that can be used for good, it can also be just plain bad.

Companies, driven by the desire for money and success, create, improve and reinvent. And like lemmings we lap it up. We pour out our hard earned cash to buy the newest thing, because it’s new.

We don’t need it, but the very fact that everyone buys it creates a need.

There is no accountability; no one who looks at new technology and asks: Will this be truly beneficial for society in the long run? They just create and we consume.

Could we be lining our graves because we follow without thinking, people who are creating without thinking, and there is no one to tell them when enough is enough?

Apologies, my last Post hadn’t quite evolved enough…

I’m comparing my post the other day to the impulse purchase of a hair product. I see something that looks new and interesting, that appears to be organic, and that promises to cater to my taming-curly-hair needs. I buy the product in a moment of inspiration and use it once, after which it sits in the back of my cupboard until long after the use-by date.

The other day I read an article that appeared interesting, that lined up with my frustrations with evolution and that seemed to present a worthy argument. And within the hour I had blogged about it.

However, as has been brought to my attention, my argument that evolution is responsible for a certain brand of racism is as petty as those who argue that religion is responsible for most of the world’s wars. Yes, there are connections, but the real problem is in the hearts of humanity. I used an example of one racist word to accuse evolution of being intrinsically racist. Not a wise move.

I’m still a creationist. I still get frustrated with the theory of evolution, which, while being based on science, makes gigantic guesses, going back millions of years, and indoctrinates the next generations with supposed facts about their meaning and origins. I believe creationism is based on equally valid science, but next time, I’ll make sure I have done my research.

So, for now, I’ll just post about the weather. That is until someone introduces a new brand of mousse.

Calling Someone an ‘Ape’ is only Racist if Evolution isn’t true.

Australian Football has recently played host to a racism saga that has attracted huge media attention. One of our Indigenous players was called an ‘ape’ by a young female spectator. She was escorted out of the stadium, and he sat out for the rest of the game. The saga was further complicated some time later when the president of the opposing team made an outrageously stupid comment alluding to it on national radio.

I had only mild interest in this issue until I read this article which makes some incredibly valid points about the offensiveness of the original comment. There is no question that calling someone an ‘ape’ is rude. It shouldn’t have been said. But is it really racist?

Calling a white person an ape isn’t considered racist, but things suddenly change when the person is coloured. Why is that?

According to evolutionary theory, humans came from apes, and it has historically been portrayed that the ‘black man’ is closer in the chain to the ape than the ‘white man.’

Evolutionarily speaking then, calling someone an ape means rudely suggesting that they are less ‘evolved’ than their white counterparts. This crosses a social taboo, but if it’s racist then so is evolution. According to evolutionary roots we are not all equal, but somehow pointing that out in public is an atrocity.

Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate our origins, and realize that claiming evolutionary theory as fact, may have much wider ramifications than what we’re willing to accept.

 

If you read this post, please read my follow-up post: Apologies, my last Post hadn’t quite evolved enough.