Recent Comments

1. Sam Hanna wrote on Apr 06, 07:24 pm

   What patronising dangerous drivel Malachi talks here. One wonders why he seeks to close off avenues of investigation and belief on the basis of his personal unproven and unproveable convictions about the monkey theory! Thank God, he was not in charge of education when men like Sir Isaac Newton was at Cambridge of Prof Norman Nevins of QUB was a graduate or we would be light years behind in our scientific development. Malachi - go and get a life you old eijit. Even if belief in Genesis turns out to be a fallacy - how does that in anyway impede science, progress. Have atheistic countries like Russia and China progressed beyong those who have a broadly theistic overview? You simply hate the concept of God as it offends your pride - ok, be honest instead of patronosing those of us who have enough sense to study microbiology and the laws of physics and realise that evolution is a joke theory to account for the breathtaking order, design, and wonder of this incredible universe. Mal, stick to your day job - a philosopher and scientist you aint!!

2. Evan wrote on Apr 06, 08:34 pm

   Touched a nerve did it Sam? But bluster and name-calling does little for your viewpoint, you must see that. The *real* microbiologists and physicists I've met (you know the type I mean, ones that lecture and go to conferences and publish their findings, that sort of thing) - stick to the argument at hand, and leave the invective out; a constructive approach, as papers based on "so's yer ma" don't get you into a conference programme or past the clerk who opens the mail at any reputable journal. But somewhere in the huff-and-puff you did try to make a point about Malachi's views, calling them "dangerous" How are they dangerous, exactly?

3. Malachi wrote on Apr 06, 11:12 pm

   There is a big difference between a 'broadly theistic overview' and reading Genesis as history. Many sensible thinking people have a 'broadly theistic overview' - only those who take their understanding from just one book think Genesis is literally true, and people of one book only tend not to make good scientists.

4. Sam wrote on Apr 07, 02:46 am

   Malachi You still have not given us one iota of evidence why we should believe that a pre-suppositionary belief in the literal Genesis account means that someone cannot be an effective scientist. Before you get too high on your horse remember that most of the people you respect as "scientists" have a pre-suppositional commitment to the Scientific Method which itself is a tautology and cannot be proven. There are hundreds of great scientists in history who have been literal seven day Creationists. Indeed, the most famous and arguably the most brilliant scientist in Ulster today, Prof Norman Nevins is a leader in his field of Genetics yet is a Creationist. In the interest of "parity of esteeem" and journalistic ethics why did you not interview him and put your flawed hypothesis that you rudely foisted on all of us to the test. I am sure he could have given you a "scientific answer" to your problem. Stop patronising us with implications like Creationists are not "sensible people." Please define "sensible" - those who believe what Malachi believes? Please show how believing in "many books" as opposed to "one book" makes you more likely to be accurate. Have you ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction? Your reply and interview was shoddy, erroneous and delineated the worst of journalistic ethics in presenting a tendentious diatribe predicated on straw men. I suggest you try a course on basic evidential logics before attempting such a programme again.

5. malachi wrote on Apr 07, 06:58 pm

   I think that part of the evidence against the literalness of the Genesis story is that it lends itself so creatively to interpretation as myth and metaphor. Which means to me that even if it was literally true it would not be as interesting as history as it is as myth. Am I a deluded fool to suppose that it is not true, historically? No, the evidence for evolution is huge; the evidence for the Adam and Eve story is one book written thousands of years ago. Why should I believe that one book over others? Suppose that the story is true: if you don't feel that you have to prove that evidentially but want me to accept it, then you can't blame me for concluding that professions which value evidence won't be impressed by your approach. That's it really.

6. Sam Hanna wrote on Apr 11, 05:21 pm

   A quick riposte: (1)Just because something can be creatively interpreted as a myth or metaphor does not prove anything. I do not know where you derive this pre-supposition from. At best, you have provided a circumstantial link here. Secondly, a quick perusal of the evolutionary literature demonstrates the same weakness e.g Crick’s view of the DNA from another Cosmos. (2)The evidence for evolution is not huge despite what you claim. The evidence for natural selection is huge, the evidence for genetic variation within the species is huge but that is a world away from demonstrating that evolution (as you defined it) is even a valid theory. We do not yet, despite billions of pounds of research, have a proven example of an observable single evolved species from another. We do not have any biochemical pathways that describe even theoretically how this could occur e.g. all we know is that the catalyst for the production of DNA and DNA itself is contingent upon one another. (3)I postulate that the Bible is the best evidence in town as it is the only book of ancient history that gives us literally thousands of internal evidences for its own integrity from thousands of prophetical statements (no other “holy book” can delineate this) that have been proven to be true, its description of the beginning of all creation ex nihilo matches up with all the observable evidence – even “science” is pushing a “Big Bang Theory,” and the Bible’s exact description of scientific truth thousands of years before man discovered them. I am willing to list these Malachi, but you must will be willing to embrace them as truth if I can prove them. The offer us up to you.

7. DC wrote on Apr 14, 01:28 pm

   Most Protestants lurch into the atheist zone rather than happy clappers territory.

8. Malachi wrote on Apr 16, 11:07 pm

   Sam, I'll decline your offer to interpret the Bible for me. I have read it for myself and thought long and hard about parts of it. I do think that there is a far better discussion to be had about religion and evolution than the old battle over literal bible versus scientific theory, and that's a point I make in my next book. I'll post some thoughts on it here soon.

View all comments (8)

Post Your Comment