Who Are We To Say That That

If The History-deniers Who Doubt The Fact Of Evolution Are Ignorant Of Biology, Those Who Think The World Began Less Than Ten Thousand Years Ago Are Worst Than Ignorant, They Are The Deluded To The Point Of Perversity.

Some Physicists Solve That Problem Of The Necessity Of Finely Tuned Physical Constants ... By Invoking The Anthropic Principle, Saying, Well, Here We Are, We Exist, We Have To Be In The Kind Of Universe Capable Of Giving Rise To Us. That In Itself Is, I Think, Unsatisfying, And As John Lennox Rightly Says, Some Physicists Solve That By The Multiverse Idea-the Idea That Our Universe Is Just One Of Many Universes.

The Alternative Which I Favor Is To Renounce All Euphemisms And Grasp The Nettle Of The Word Atheism Itself, Precisely Because It Is A Taboo Word Carrying Frissons Of Hysterical Phobia. Critical Mass May Be Harder To Achieve Than With Some Non-confrontational Euphemism, But If We Did Achieve It With The Dread Word Atheist, The Political Impact Would Be All The Greater.

I Think From My Point Of View - I Won't Say It Doesn't Matter Whether [darwinian Explanations] Are Right Or Wrong, It's Just Sufficient In Some Cases, For Me, To Be Able To Say, Well, At Least It's Not Totally Implausible From A Darwinian Point Of View.

You Can't Even Begin To Understand Biology, You Can't Understand Life, Unless You Understand What It's All There For, How It Arose - And That Means Evolution.