TV and Radio   permalink

Did Darwin Kill God?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 209
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Religion_Host (U1716878) on Monday, 30th March 2009

    This programme is part of the BBC's Darwin Season and will be broadcast at 7pm on Tuesday 31 March on BBC TWO.

    In the programme Conor Cunningham, who is a Christian and a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution, attempts to overturn the view that Darwin's ideas have weakened religion.

    Follow this link to find out more about the programme:

    The programme's Executive Producer, Jean Claude Bragard, will be available on this message board thread to answer your questions during board opening hours on Wednesday 1st April.

    Religion Host

  • Message 2

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Pooka (U7155899) on Monday, 30th March 2009

    And on and on and on it goes. One day they'll just have to say, 'Oh alright then'.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by theoverlay (U13781513) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009

    Of course he didn't. He killed Genesis. Phil Collins is a rubbish drummer anyway. lol.

    But seriously the bible was a book written by mankind, not god. Don't know why creationists can't just believe god created evolution and then go on about their day. Or even read some Aristotle prime mover stuff..

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Ma'at (U8965295) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009

    Wednesday 1st April. 
    smiley - whistle

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by The Doctor (U13737004) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009

    He killed God of the Scriptures...

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Religion_Host (U1716878) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009


    Just to remind you, Exec Producer Jean Claude Bragard is going to be answering any questions you have about last night's Darwin programme throughout today.

    You can watch the programme again here:

    Religion Host

  • Message 7

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Gary Heron (U2441558) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    I was not that impressed. While I agree that Darwin didn't kill god he didn't set out to. Darwin also didn't kill elves , golblins and the tooth fairy.

    I was also not impressed with the presenters view that christians had never taken the Genesis account literaly, when he got to the American Bible his argument seemed to be that no christians take genesis literally except for the millions that do.

    I was also disapointed that he did not addrss what I thought were obvious problems with his view.

    1. If man evolved in a Darwinian way did the human soul also evolve.

    2. Why would a loving god decide to populate the Earth with its various life forms uing the cruelest method possible, Darwinian evolution.

    3. If Genesis is not to be taken literally but interpreted for its deeper truth and that contradictions indicate that a non literal interpretaion is to be used where do you stop, Genesis, Exodus ... And are the gospels not to be read as literaly true given the differences between them

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by dtpeurope (U11129553) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    Beware your sources. Many people take bbc news as truth when it is contrived and distortion. So it is with the bible. I dont believe a word it says.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by theoverlay (U13781513) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    Superb. Great to hear someone on this subject who isn't from either end of the scale. I thought it was balanced and well researched and terrific food for thought. On a side note I thought he put a lot of professional journalists to shame. One of the best investigative pieces i've seen for some time.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Jean Claude Bragard (U13889168) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    Hi GaryHeron

    Conor's point was simply that a literal approach to the Bible is not part of the mainstream. In so far as millions of American Christians do take it literally, they're taking their cue from very recent Protestant strands of Christianity - such as Creationism.

    Your other points go the heart of the issues. Interestingly, in the 19C the Catholic Church was happy to accept Darwin's theory of evolution provided there was room for the soul. But if you believe in the soul, then that of course is the challenge for Darwinian Christian to explain.

    If God exists and Darwinism is true then why would a loving God choose such a cruel method of populating the earth is the central mystery for any Christian, or monotheist for that matter. It is what ultimately made Darwin lose his faith. The answers will depend a lot on how God is defined.

    Where indeed do you stop with non-literal interpretations? Well the history of 20th and 21st C theology is full of debate on that very issue of how to interpret the gospels. Many New Testament scholars would argue that the Gospels are indeed an attempt to convey the essence of who Jesus was using literary forms that are not exclusively or even mainly literal.


    jean claude

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by wigginhall (U13785634) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    Jean Claude

    I enjoyed the programme. I thought he dealt with creationism very well, in showing its comparative modernity.

    The question of a 'cruel world' hinges for me on its material nature. Everything material decays and dies, so a material world is bound to be full of suffering.

    Sometimes, people say, why couldn't God create a material world without suffering, but for me, that is incoherent. It would be a magical world, and God, or at least the Christian God, is not a magician.

    And of course the Christian story has at its heart the suffering of God. It is not dodged. If you like, God suffers by coming into existence. I think we get confused by the Greek notion of an unmoved God, whereas the Christian God is racked by suffering.

    For me, the issue of literalism is a non-issue. If you read any of the early Christians, they are obsessed with allegorical and metaphoric readings of all texts. Our notion of the factual nature of texts just wouldn't have occurred to them.

    I am reading something Conor has written online about the contradictions in materialism. Very elegant. It's a pleasure to see something so intelligent on TV.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Religion_Host (U1716878) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009


    Just to let you know, Jean Claude has had to go to a meeting but will be back shortly!

    Thanks for your patience.


  • Message 13

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by theshoelessone (U12890309) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    The idea that a meme's survival has nothing to do with its truth is completely absurd and shows that the presenter either knows nothing about memes or is deliberately misleading viewers about them.

    A meme's survival can absolutely be dependent upon its truth. The colonised person has every opportunity to test any meme that they are colonised with at any time during the colonisation process. Any meme tested and proven false can easily be destroyed within the mind, while any meme that stands up to rigorous testing, such as scientific experiment, will be allowed to survive and be reinforced by said testing. Any meme that cannot be proven either way can and should have big question marks attached to it.

    All memes go through a process of natural selection just as genes do. The true ones will ultimately survive in the long run and the false ones will not. False and worthless memes take energy away from the individuals and societies they colonise and when the human race encounters extreme survival situations it will be those memes that are tested severely for their truth and worth and many false and worthless memes will perish forever when those events occur.

    The fact that modern humans have not ever encountered an extreme survival situation has given rise to the perpetuation and dissemination of many false and worthless memes and this has clouded the theory. It does not as the presenter would have it, create an unanswerable problem with the theory.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by dtpeurope (U11129553) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    I found the programme facile. Mr Cunningham was just another one tryng to make the case for the bible. There is overwhelming evidence that the bible is just the product of different peoples imaginations and there is no more meaning to it than that. Its a number of nice stories, just as the Star Wars series.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by benelgenubi (U1970645) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    hi jean claude.

    i have 2 seperate points.

    first i did not think the ID point of view was very accurate or very clear, and i only got a few words applied to it.

    the ID web site gives a much clearer definition :www.intelligentdesig...

    and the second point is :

    that 9 years before darwin's book. -Andrew Jackson Davis already published an account of 'the origin of man' in the first volume of 'the great harmonia volume 1 (1850)'. availabe online as an ebook , there is even a very good illustration of the tree of life from minerals up to

    i have the actual book , all the volumes.

    if you dont know Jackson was known as the ' poughkeepsie seer ' and obtained all his information by psychic means. himself being at that time 'very unschooled'


    can you make a documentory on him sometime., it would be very interesting

    all the best


    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by SusanDoris (U2850104) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    M7 GaryHeron

    Nice post.smiley - ok


    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by naughtypotnoodle (U13896651) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    I would like to ask Jean Claude this:If Genesis is not to be believed literally then Adam could not have 'literally' committed the first sin. Therefore Jesus's purpose of 'dying for our <Adam's> sins was meaningless. Conversely, if Genesis is to be believed, then 'man' could not have evloved.  On both counts, how can Christianity be compatible with evolution by natural selection?

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by kate-m-b (U8585630) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    I agree. It was about time we heard something on the subject from the point of view of the non-extremist Christian.
    I was surprised, though, that there was no mention of Darwin's notorious opponent Bishop Wilberforce. Was his attitude really a minority one in 19th-century England?


    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by flibbly (U10914379) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

    I think dtpeurope is being too generous calling the programme facile. Whilst it certainly was, it was also extremely dishonest. The presenter made a number of claims about what "ultra-Darwinists" said, some of which may or may not be true, I don't know without research, but some of them were definitely not true. As for the editing, especially around the Dan Dennet interview - that was blatently dishonest. The presenter asked Dennet about "ultra-Darwinists" (what was it with this ignorant buffoon and this phrase? He obviously thought it sounded clever), then after a cut we saw Dennet answering a totally different question.

    Besides all that, he never actually attempted to address any of the problems that accepting evolution by natural selection throws up for christians (or other believers in a creator god).

    Whilst its only fair that "evolution accepting christians" get to put their point over during the Darwin season of programmes, I would expect them to at least attempt to do so in a way that shows them in a positive light. Last nights programme did the toal opposite, further showing that they are either ignorant or perfectly willing to lie to further their cause.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by BobTonka (U11518288) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009


    Awesome question! Not sure the producer of the programme is the best person to pose it to though, may I suggest a new thread with this question in the OP?

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.

The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.