UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Attenborough: Genesis? It can go forth and multiply

The Bible is to blame for devastation of the planet, says Sir David Attenborough

By Steve Connor, Science editor

Sir David Attenborough yesterday blamed the Book of Genesis for all number of environment ills, from deforestation to the extinction of species

GETTY IMAGES

Sir David Attenborough yesterday blamed the Book of Genesis for all number of environment ills, from deforestation to the extinction of species

He has romped with gorillas, turned his back on grizzly bears and found himself knee-deep in suffocating bat dung. After decades of getting to know the furthest-flung corners of the world – and its inhabitants – Sir David Attenborough has vented his ire on the Bible for promoting the belief that man has complete dominion over the Earth.

Sir David, probably the best-loved broadcaster and certainly the most distinguished television naturalist, has blamed the Book of Genesis for many environmental problems, from the burning down of tropical rainforests to the extinction of species.

On the eve of a BBC1 documentary on the life of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, Sir David has criticised the centuries-old idea running through the Judaeo-Christian tradition which assumes God gave the Earth to man to exploit and use in whatever way he saw fit in order to populate the world.

Sir David, 82, said the devastation of the environment has its roots in the first words that God supposedly uttered to humankind, as detailed in Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

An atheist raised in an academic, non-religious family, Sir David said Genesis peddled untruths about how animals and plants appeared on earth and was also at the root of why there was now serious environmental degradation due to the greedy overexploitation of the earth's natural resources.

"The influence of the Book of Genesis, which says the Lord God said 'go forth and multiply' to Adam and Eve and 'the natural world is there for you to dominate', [is that] you have dominion over the animals and plants of the world," Sir David said.

"That basic notion, that the world is there for us and if it doesn't actually serve our purposes, it's dispensable, that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the land's surface.

"Of course it's a gross oversimplification, but that's why Darwinism, and the fact of evolution, is of great importance because it is that attitude which has led to the devastation of so much, and we are in the situation that we are in," he told the science journal Nature.

In tomorrow's documentary, Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, Sir David does not mention the Bible directly but there is an oblique reference to its influence in his concluding statements about the important principles of evolution encapsulated by Darwin in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species.

"Darwin's great insight revolutionised the way in which we see the world ... But above all Darwin has shown us that we are not apart from the natural world – we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to its laws and processes, as are all the other animals on earth to which indeed we are related."

Sir David has received hate mail from viewers upset that he does not give God credit in his nature programmes and some correspondence from creationists makes him angry.

"Evolution is not just a theory, as many a correspondent writes to me and says. It is a historical fact like any other historical fact and as certain as William the Conqueror landing in 1066, except it's more certain because the evidence for it comes from a much wider range of fact," Sir David said.

"All we have to tell us about William are a few bits of paper here or there – not very much at all. For evolution, we have much more evidence," he said.

Sir David has misunderstood the scriptures

Catherine Pepinster, Editor, The Tablet

David Attenborough is right to talk about the influence of the Book of Genesis on our relationship with the rest of creation, for the first book of the Bible is the foundation of the theological account of humanity's relationship with the land. It is a story of the struggle for survival, of a people for whom the desert was very close and very threatening.

But the idea that you survive by treating the world as if it is dispensable and only there for our purposes is to misunderstand was is meant in scripture by "dominion". If you go back to the roots of that term you find that it means a kingly rule of the kind bestowed by the shepherd-king David. It means rule in God's image, a pastoral rule of great care. In other words, stewardship.

Stewardship means responsibility. It means acting like Noah to preserve the animals threatened with flood. Increasing numbers of Christians today are rethinking their relationship with the environment, with God's creation. This planet is not ours to use and abuse. It is to be tended, helped to blossom and to be fruitful. Otherwise we will indeed turn the world into a desert.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
Genesis
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 12:38 am (UTC)
with great respect to sir David, genesis was not intended to be an accurate account of creation. all peoples have an instinctive belief in a great spirit that created everything, it's natural and logical that they should;these instinctive feelings need not be religious, but the feeling of awe and gratitude may be called religious; what is interesting is the tendency to anthropomorphise evolution by using purposive terms and adjectives like genius, in fact the psychology of attitudes to the theory is a study in itself. Atheists affirm the existence of a god by the very act of denying its existence. generally as children something bad has happened to them and they blame god by in effect saying I am so angry with you that I will deny your existence and I hope it hurts you as much as you hurt me
if it wasn't so o obvious it would be funny. In fact it is funny to see and hear these angry children raging at an indifferent father figure
Re: Genesis
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 01:55 am (UTC)
Hmm, this is a new one: atheists as angry sulking children.

Have you actually met any atheists? If not, you'll find that we tend to be quite rational in our approach and beliefs. We have taken a good look at the world around us and have realised that not only is there no need for a god but that religions are so full of internal contradictions that it should be impossible for any sane person to follow one.

So, no anger there. No blame. Just sadness that so many people continue to fall into the trap of thinking that the universe has an owner.
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]stpap - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]jstevewhite - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]onelifelived - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]srdye867 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 11:39 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]jstevewhite - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 04:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]easyeasy900 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]darter22 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 06:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 06:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]btchakir - Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC) Expand
Bible
[info]sue_205 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 12:44 am (UTC)
Catherine Pepinster may well have the 'correct' interpretation. The problem is not only the ambiguity, but because it is "God's word" the interpreter claims certainty of her position. That is OK if the interpretation is 'good', but what if it is 'bad'......
Sir David Attenborough
[info]stejwill wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 01:34 am (UTC)
Thankfully more and more influential people are making their voices heard in this debate. There is no place in today's society for the archaic views of frightened and ignorant people who, in an effort to explain what they could not understand, turned to 'magic'. For the same reasons we no longer practice 2,000 year old medical techniques, we should no longer take accept 2,000 year old explanations of creation.
Genesis
[info]garrick4 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 01:44 am (UTC)
"Atheists affirm the existence of a god by the very act of denying its existence"
Interesting that at the start of a paragraph claiming that athiests are just angry children, vhawk1951 makes an argument that is so weak, I would have though it could only come from a child. Don't deny it vhawk1951, or you'll prove me right!
Re: Genesis
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:37 pm (UTC)
it's not an argument, it is an observation- and obviously one that touches a nerve. there is nothing like truth for annoying people and the more annoyed they get the more they confirm that it is the truth res ipsur loquitur
Re: Genesis - [info]lindsay40k - Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 02:50 pm (UTC) Expand
What the Al-Quran reveals
[info]aljufri wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:06 am (UTC)
Man is accountable to his deeds. Al-Quran succinctly explained in Surah 6:165,
" Allah is the One who has made you the inheritors of the earth ( viceregent) and raised some of you in ranks over others so that He may test you in what He has given you. Indeed your Lord is swift in inflicting punishment; yet He is also very Forgiving and Merciful"
Syed H Aljoofre
Re: What the Al-Quran reveals
[info]sinbadsilk wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:54 am (UTC)
aljufri,
But where does it actually say that man is accountable? You've just said that Allah in your quote that Allah tests us - NOT that he has made us accountable - and since we cannot know God's plan, how are we to know God's criteria?

There are much better quotes that you can use in the Koran. Please use them if you truly wish to argue your case on this.
vhawk1951
[info]stejwill wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:36 am (UTC)
What a doozy - "Atheists affirm the existence of a god by the very act of denying its existence".

You have to smile, don't you.
Re: vhawk1951
[info]rancidshark wrote:
Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 09:58 pm (UTC)
You certainly do. That is one of the most incredibly ridiculous and childish arguments I have ever heard.... and I was a child for about twelve years. :D

Sir David has not misunderstood the scriptures
[info]kentepoz wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 04:22 am (UTC)
We would do well in applauding and heeding Sir David's timely reminder of Genesis' stake in our destructive relations with the natural world and in desisting from all this babble on atheism vs god's intent. There's simply no time for it.
Genesis and Darwin
[info]mjdarcy2002 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 04:49 am (UTC)
I agree with vhawk1951 regarding his observations concerning the nature of the disputed passages from the book of Genesis, and would add that people need to *actually read* Darwin, particularly his "The Descent of Man." It contains some of the most grotesque passages in the sad literary corpus of eugenics. This aspect of Darwin's thought is completely white-washed. In fact, the textbook that was used by John Scopes (the defendant in the famous "Monkey Trial") contained all sorts of references to hideous Darwin-inspired eugenic policy recommendations that ought to turn the stomach of anyone who lived after the Holocaust. Perhaps those taking the Bible too literally were off about science, but they managed to retain their ability to smell a rat. People should read GK Chesterton's essays about the eugenic ideas that were so celebrated in his day. He was viciously attacked by the mainstream press with nearly the same language that the Catholic Church is attacked today regarding embryonic stem cell research and abortion (i.e., he was advocating that superstition stand in the way of science and progress, etc. & etc. ).
Re: Genesis and Darwin
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:45 pm (UTC)
speaking as a candidate for eugenics, qua cripple, I can understand the logic of it. I really cannot work and parasites like me should be done away with from a purely logical and scientific viewpoint
Re: Genesis and Darwin - [info]jstevewhite - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genesis and Darwin - [info]lindsay40k - Sunday, 1 February 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC) Expand
The Truth
[info]romand1 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:28 am (UTC)
What Stuff!!! Anyone with half a brain reading Genesis can see that by the 3rd chapter mankind had LOST that dominion which Mr. Attenborough sniffs at. Now, I don't know about your sense of time and proportion, but mine tells me the 3rd chapter of Genesis happened a looooong time ago! To go on pretending after the fact that mankind still had any kind of dominion is just misinformed nonsense. Mr. Attendorough, you should be better than that! Nobody needs you to misrepresent the Bible, then piss all it. By the way, you may have heard, this mess was the reason it was necessary for an act of unmerited grace (aka 'salvation'). Perhaps you've heard of a man named Jesus? The rest of the story...
Re: The Truth
[info]ngtx wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 01:20 pm (UTC)
What utter tosh, please take your ignorance elsewhere.
Re: The Truth - [info]vhawk1951 - Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 02:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Koran
[info]oarinput wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 05:45 am (UTC)
I suppose it had to happen: in come the people who follow a book written by a bunch of medieval Arabs who heard some sayings from a guy called Mohammed who claimed to hear them from the archangel Gabriel, who does not exist, who heard them from God, who does not exist.
The Tablet
[info]dylanatstrumble wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 06:34 am (UTC)
So typical of religious apologists to try and explain one myth by utilizing another one, in this case, Noah. There is no evidence to support the story of a great flood and the idea that all the world's animals (even only 2 of each type!!) could fit on to one boat is absurd. The story itself is a probably a variation on an old Babylonian story about a farmer who saved his animals when the Euphrates suffered a larger than usual flood. The sooner we nail these Jewish old wives tales, the sooner we can start acting a grown up manner and stop looking for "salvation" in some super human entity
Ms Pepinster
[info]garry2000 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
Your argument is fair. Unfortunately interpretations of the Bible have been so varied and convoluted over the centuries that so often the Scriptures have been used to exploit the many and empower the few. The over riding theme of this article (as I see it) is that whatever your beliefs, human kind will continue to exploit and empower and use the Bible as a means in its self, not as a concluding argument.

For example, the argument by many American fundamentalists that they love their God and their guns in absurd, but it is used as a vehicle to achieve specific agendas. As the world's resources are depleted the more radical elements will turn to their understanding of the Bible as justifiction for their actions. Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq is of course the classic example. The United States how has access to vast quantities of oil and a new government is not going to change that. The Old Testament is used as justification by Jewish settlers to remove Palestinians from their land.

Religion has become such a profound part of the fabric of our life that it will always be used to justify others actions.
The right of being born-free
[info]mackname wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 07:01 am (UTC)

The main problem is that people of different religious 'background' presume that 'the idea of creation' or whatever, is something that they have to drill it deep inside the head of children.

finding a way to illegalize 'inheriting religion' from parents to offspring is the right path to stop religious influence by default is the answer to move forward.

of course, it should be applied to all kind of ideological beliefs as well.

Re: The right of being born-free
[info]jstevewhite wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:49 pm (UTC)
Um, including the ideological belief that parents should be prohibited from imparting ideological beliefs?

We learn a huge amount from our parents. Such a prohibition would be unenforceable and abhorrent. You'd have to take children away from their parents early, and then have another ideologue indoctrinate them with a state-sponsored ideology.

Research shows that groups benefit from diverse worldviews, and monoculture of ideologies is bad, no matter what the ideology in question.
Re: The right of being born-free - [info]molewood6 - Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 06:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Catherine Pepinster
[info]daya111 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
Catherine Pepinster's response is akin to analyzing the names of Santa's reindeer in a discussion of the reality of Santa.

And, yes,Abrahamic beliefs have a lot of violence to answer for, but non Christian societies have the same environmental impact, so one can not blame it solely on Genesis.

Ans vhawks's assertions are typical of the shallow minset that reinforces irrational beliefs like Abrahamic religions.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that
[info]2009_31_1 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
First, Attenborough's 'misunderstanding' is a faithful interpretation of how millions of Christians interpret the scriptures. I'm glad that the editor of the Tablet has come to different conclusions about what the word 'dominion' means - pity she wasn't one of the Christians in charge of the World's Largest Polluter for the last nine years or so. The Bible and the Koran are both beautiful books, full of poetry lovely enough to let me believe there's something revelatory about them. But they're ambiguous enough to be used cruelly by bad people, and the passage Attenborough cites is a well-known case in point.

Far beyond the supernatural but comforting images atheists alienate people by mocking, this usage is the real problem with religion. And the problem with Dawkins and Hitchens types is that it's bleedingly historically obvious such usages aren't restricted to religion, and that everybody waking up atheists tomorrow wouldn't fix a damn thing. It's historically illiterate to pretend otherwise.

Second, there's no doubt Attenborough was right to criticize the spirit of that comment. But it is a chicken-and-egg question. Did the passage encourage people to exploit the Earth? Or did people's desire to exploit the earth encourage them to interpret the passage the way they did? Did people's desire to exploit the earth make them more amenable to religions like Christianity and Islam, whose sacred books contain these ambiguous passages that seem to excuse their base behaviour? And less amenable to religions like some strains of Buddhism and animism, that encourage a degree of self-denial or respect for and participation with the natural world?

While I'm whingeing, that's something else I can't stand about Hitchensy-Dawkinsy atheists - their unveiled eurocentrism. They seem to have a hard time admitting eastern and animistic religions, anything but the People of the Book, even count - showing that their 'rationality' rests, pathetically, on the same prejudices they ascribe so vociferously to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Just more evidence that everybody waking up atheists tomorrow wouldn't fix anything - the disrespect and ignorance of other cultures would continue without a break.
Re: I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 03:21 pm (UTC)
Dawkins is an angry little boy, I bet his pet died when he was young. The vitriol with which he denounces theism is psychologically interesting, sadly he has no self- insight
Sir David is correct
[info]greenman9876 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 08:16 am (UTC)
Catherine Pepinster seems to have no knowledge of history. Canny politicians and religious leaders have deliberately misinterpreted this passage in Genesis for their own purposes. Dominion is much more profitable in the short term than stewardship. As an ex-Christian of the evangelical tradition, I have heard far too many sermons about dominion and very few about our responsibilities. Perhaps the Catholic tradition is different (though I don't see the serious environmental problems in Italy as its vindication) but fundamentalist Christianity has always been right wing, anti-green in the majority.
Aethist & proud of it.
[info]aidrenegade wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
I was brought up a a kid watching Life On Earth, as relevant today as it was in the 70's. I'm looking forward to watching tomorrows program.

(PS - Just can't be bothered to talk religion this morning)
[info]jimmyjitt wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC)
you are right, waking up atheists would not make any difference. we are all animals, and and our behaviour means DNA survival at whatever cost. Religion excuses our bad behaviour.
Genesis
[info]frigalo wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
When will Catherine Pepinster face scientific facts? Her yearning for a "father figure is touching but a distraction. The blogger Vhawk1951 suggests that atheists affirm the existence of God by denying it, erm, I also insist that fairies don't exist. Does that make them exist? The earth came about by a cosmic accident, it will eventually disappear and probably the human species with it. Although Stephen Hawking suggests that human animals should find another planet to exist on because Earth will not be hospitable to us for ever, I think we should accept that we are not that important and die out like other species.
[info]merch_y_bryn wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 08:53 am (UTC)
It isn't the accuracy or otherwise of Genesis that's the point, but the interpretation humanity has placed upon it.
Genesis
[info]krthompson wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
I afraid you've got it the wrong way round Sir David. Our constant abuse of our planet flows directly from our greed and determination to do and have whatever we want. And this stems from our determination to see ourselves as Gods in control of own destiny and answerable to none. Now that is the real problem. And incidentally this is the fundamental issue the Bible addresses from Genesis onwards.
Attenborough's Genius in refuting Genesis
[info]green_capuchin wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)
I have the greatest respect for this esteemed and experienced naturalist. To hear his views on religious doctrine only strengthens my admiration for this great humanitarian who has spent a lifetime observing the natural world.

The very notion of a doctrine that advocates a 'go forth and multiply' approach to life has in part caused the world's population to swell to over 6.3 billion. We are now a plague upon the world and we need to do something to seriously reduce our numbers (or I dare say, mother nature will, or we will simply have another World War as a result of competition for scarce resources).

The Catholic church's stance on abortion and contraception only fuels the ever-expanding numbers of the human race. The orthodox religions attempt to dominate each other in numbers. Just because we can breed uncontrollably, does not mean we should.

Well done Sir David, it's a shame there aren't more venerable wise men and women out there to share their experience and common sense. Politics could do with people like him to bring a more-balanced view to governance of our society.
Re: Attenborough's Genius in refuting Genesis
[info]robert69 wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
Why on earth, Catherine Pepinster, do the editions of Genesis use the word Stewardship instead of Dominion, if that is what it means. My Jerusalem Bible uses the words "conquer" the earth and "be masters" of fish, birds and animals, but nothing about wise, compassionate kingship. If you go on to the next verse, 29, in Genesis you find support for your idea Stewardship in the divine command to be vegan as God explains how he wants us to fill the role He has given us. "See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are upon the whole earth and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit:this shall be your food." As this is a role that Christians have utterly refused to accept, you, as a Christian, have to struggle greatly to make your interpretation of the word Dominion plausible.
Us atheists.
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
One thing you won't get from us atheists is a knock on your door, just when you don't need it, telling you that you should be just like us. Why? We don't need to convince anyone that we're right. All you of the religious bent would be far more convincing if you didn't feel the need to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throats to make yourselves feel happier about something your not sure is correct!

I'm with you, Sir David. We evolved, we saw, we tried to conquer and in the process, we screwed it all up.
Genesis
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
Thank you Sir David, for sensibly pointing out the impossibilities of Genesis...

vhawk 1951
In my experience, Christianity as a whole states the the Bible should be taken quite literally, but some bits,(to suit whom?) can or should be taken with a small pinch of salt?
I don't agree that all peoples have an instinctive belief in a great spirit? that statement makes me feel quite lonely.

It never fails to amaze me that seemingly grown up, serious adult folk, will blithely put so much faith in an invisible God that may or may not be there? and then be admired and adulated for it, as in Pope, Archbishop, in fact, most all religious clerics.
Having read one or two versions of the Bible, the only sensible, coherent facts I could find in the whole book were the 10 commandments, they seem a quite sensible set of rules to try to apply to ones life.

In difficult circumstances be they personal or global, we are asked to pray...I have done my share of that in the past, before I saw common sense, and I have to say, not one single prayer has ever been answered, (I must be a real bad lot) in fact, I had more answers when sending letters to Santa in my childhood.
evolution is a fact
[info]simeon_w wrote:
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)
The chap is right. Without the book of Genesis man wouldn't have ever come to the idea of breeding and slaughtering large numbers of research mice on a daily basis and interfere with the genetic information of naturally evolved species. Evolution is a fact as is Dolly the Sheep and the patent pending Mycoplasma Laboratorium.
Re: evolution is a fact
[info]simienmountains wrote:
Monday, 2 February 2009 at 12:27 am (UTC)
I have no trouble with his statement, but would note that men of ALL religions find it consistent to damage the environment and yet follow their religious beliefs.
I come from a country where Hindus annually visit the sea and throw all their " prayer material", into the water. I see the Muslims of Dubai building empires in the water. So for me, it's not singular to Genesis and Christians.
As an atheist, I can see no difference in the thought capacity of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other..they all limit one's reasoning ability and it shows very clearly in their actions.
Re: evolution is a fact - [info]cave_painter - Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date