Understanding Genetics - Peter Atkins Interview 3

In your book Galileo's Finger, I was suprised to find a list of arguments against creationism. If creationism isn't science why bother addressing it at all? - An interview with Peter Atkins at the Future of Science Conference in Venice, Italy September 2006.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• atkins
• genetic
• museum
• future
• science
• religion
• evolution
• ethics
• social
• DNA
• technology
• tech
• creationism
• astc

[VolkStrokerMedia]

@VolkStrokerMedia Plus stalin was pushing his own type of 'state religion' and didn't want competition. He then revived the church to promote patriotism and drive in the war effort. Stalin used religion (state, christian, or otherwise) as a tool to make people do what he wanted. He preyed on religious ties to manipulate the actions of religious people in his favor.

This wasnt because stalin was atheist, it was because he was just an asshole. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't do the things he did.

[VolkStrokerMedia]

@easymoney4ever Old comment, yes, but still... Atheism, aside from not being a doctrine (therefore being unable to have a mass motive), doesn't automatically say 'kill all the christians'. Atheists don't generally like religion for it's unscientific basis for it's political activism... however no self-respecting atheist is going to really suggest that we murder all christians. Atheists rather prefer to purge humanity of religion and other superstition through education and promotion of reason.

[SPLFernandes]

In order to say God created... one has to say "chaos created". What is the difference? Why is this so important to science, since no one can prove this statement?

[easymoney4ever]

Communist Russia already tried that. Kill all the Christians. Atheism is the evil the rots the world. For it always concludes it must destroy Christians to save the world. GRRR!

[irishmauddib]

Its all down to point of view and nothing else. We dont think our eye is poorly evolved, it seems great to us. Spend a day as a shrimp, hawk or eagle and then go back to being human and youd realise it is very badly designed. They dont just see BETTER than us they also see things we cant AND in ways we cant. We just see light for example but shrimp can see also what direction the light they see is traveling.

[datuna]

lol, might be. i'm not asserting anything but the man said eye is poor design or whatever he said i don't care, eye is not poorly designed or evoluated call as you like, thought it is believed that eye evolution didn't take a long time, about 120 thousand years, lol

[irishmauddib]

Theres many books and youtube videos on the evolution of the eye. Dont fall into the trap of thinking that if it seems too complex to you then it cant have happened.

Remember our "complex eyes" are actually very bad. There are Shrimp swimming in the sea with better eyes than ours that can see things in ways we cannot.

[datuna]

ok, thanks mate

[trin1721]

If you really want to know and are genuine then that is great. Read the chapter on the evolution of the eye in Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. There is also one on the evolution of flight.

We have very good explanations for the evolution of 'the eye'. It is thought to have happened 40 - 60 times independently in the history of life. The human eye is just one manifestation, which happens to be better than the insect eye etc. If it was designed, why so many versions?

[datuna]

Oh, thanks friend. I hope i'll manage that. But, i'd like to here it from you. How did you get evolution of 137 million sensitive cells per inch of a human eye? I really want to know. I'm trying to find out some things. :):):) No worries!!