« IJST, April 2009 | Main | 2009 Edinburgh Dogmatic Conference »

March 24, 2009


Tina Louise

The programme was excellent - fair, informative and intelligent.

Conor Cunningham is the first voice, that I have heard express my personal beliefs - I thought it was just me that had Darwin & god (creator) co-habitating happily in my head.

Tina Louise

Jaes P

Deeply disappointing, IMHO. Full of non-sequiturs, such as the idea that memes undermined Darwinism, and somehow validated religion. Eh?
Like viruses, some memes are more successful than others and having a logical basis certainly helps.
Dr Cunningham came across as a more intelligent version of Father Dougal McGuire - just not as entertaining.

Dorf Ruscoe

At last someone has verbalised and managed to capture the thoughts and questions that have been in my mind for many years. I have just had a really healthy debate with my husband ( a devout Dawkin's disciple) having watched the BBC 2 programme. Perhaps I ought to add I'm a somewhat doubting cradle Catholic!
Can I suggest you try and arrange a live debate between Dawkins and Cunningham?
Many, I believe are searching; we need more open debate and discussion

Dorf R


I believe Cunningham once tried to arrange a debate with Dawkins and the latter refused.

I felt the show was slightly more style than substance unfortunately, though that's somewhat inevitable when you're broadcasting to a wider audience. I'm sure once Dr. Cunningham's soon to be published book on Darwin will provide more in-depth analysis of the issues discussed in the documentary.


For someone with a background in theology and philosophy, this was an awful presentation. Straw man after straw man, vague reasoning, circular logic and a complete misrepresentation of the meme concept. And the name calling (Fundamentalist atheists) did not help either.

He applies different standards of evidence to suit his needs. Apparently the statement god does not exist is not scientifically valid but that standard somehow does not apply to god. He protests against atheist targeting the Christian god, yet there was not a single mention of other faiths.

I was hoping for a nuanced argument, and all I got was the god of the gaps argument.

Very disappointing.

Patrick Kenehan

Mr Cunningham's discussion on whether or not God exists was as relevant as a cancer sore on an elephant's bum. The species,homo sapiens, is a cancer on the body of Mother Earth and how soon it destroys this wonderful planet is a matter for simple conjecture. Incidentally, when the brainy people talk of the "Big Bang" to explain the creation of the Universe, they totally fail to mention what it was that went bang or indeed in what space did the item that went bang exist. Sounds like a chicken and egg story to me.


the big bang theory, just as the thoery of evolution neither refutes nor supports an existance of a god or gods, cannot and does not attempt to describe the "creation" of the universe - it describes the expansion and evolution of the universe from the planck era.


Interesting but how can you rely on somebody who in the one instance acknowledges evolution because there is so much evidence for it and who is then happy to declare a belief in god when there is zero evidence. He, like many who share his moderate views, is simply desperately trying to hold onto his god in the face of mounting evidence suggesting there is no god. Was full of misrepresentations - Dawkin's and popular atheists have NEVER said there is no god (it's impossible to prove) but that there is no EVIDENCE for a god and more and more likely that there isn't. Also, he says towards the end that the meme theory scores an own goal by inadvertently making evolution or any scientific theory difficult to trust! Er, excuse me, EVIDENCE!

James McKinnon

I was amazed at the amateurish performance and arguments of this 'professional'. His arguments were totally vague - perhaps being on TV he preferred style over substance.Among his many howlers was the claim that the fathers of the church and the Christian community in general had never promoted a literal interpretation of the scriptures -quoting only one 'father' and that badly translated. Where did he dig up this stuff which is completely without evidence to support it? I'm afraid if he ever dared to appear in debate with Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins they'd eat him up in one gulp.


So, James, tell me: which of the church fathers held to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1?

Wasn't the whole point of the programme just to show that the theory of evolution and religious (Christian) belief aren't incompatible as many suppose, and that this latest bout is a recent phenomenon?

Charles Warner

I am so glad that I am not a christian as I would have had to try to justify the ridiculous arguments put forward in this show. Lots of misimformation. The sort of confusing smoke and mirrors approach that I would have thought that the bbc was above.


Such as...?

Harry Varty

His main point was that the theory of natural selection does not disprove the existence of God. The trouble is that the atheists he criticised have never made such a claim. Dawkins and Dennett know quite well that you cannot prove a negative. After putting false words into their mouths it was easy to discredit them.

Another sign of his desperation was the statement that natural selection is only a theory. But he doesn’t have similar reservations about the Bible even though he acknowledged that it is not factual. He and others made the ridiculous claim that, where the Bible is found to be incorrect, a deeper meaning is being conveyed.

And what was his point about rice having more chromosomes than humans. It led to him scoffing at atheists but what was this supposed to prove? He didn’t say.

Miro Nowak

"Did Darwin kill god?" Which god Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Votan , Ra? Do we really need to ask ourselves this nonsensical question in 21 century. Don't we have more important issues on this planet of ours ?

"Fundamental atheist" ? What is next
fundamental scientist, democrat, teetotaler, vegetarian ?

Watching this "documentary" was a complete waste of time.

I think "doctor of theology" Mr. Cosmo Kramer Cunningham should start looking for a new....real job. What about a position of Santa Claus in a local shopping mall? Good working conditions. Costumes and fake beards provided.
Story telling skills+clearance from the child protection authorities REQUIRED.

Happy and Festive Season to all rational people who live in the real world.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad