I’m no longer a fan of the evolutionary “debate”. When you are presented with such a weight of evidence, you cannot help but feel that the contrary view (ie. intelligent design) must be rejected simply because it offers nothing in the way of a scientific foundation. As much as I enjoyed talking about it with religiously minded people when I was a student, inevitably this interest waned when the endless loop became apparent; they don’t want to listen to the evidence and that’s final. They feel God and that’s final. I could say as much of this climate science “debate”, if it was not for the ramifications to ecosystems on which we are fundamentally reliant upon. Mass extinction events are not a pleasant time for most of the surviving species. In the wake of many lost ecological functions, the generalists exploit and the specialists more often than not fail. It’s a painful rebirth of biodiversity.
And through our actions in changes to landscape use, over-exploitation of natural resources and climate alterations, we are creating a mass extinction event – one that can be avoided. For this reason alone, I must act.
However, it’s not so important with evolution and religion (if, of course, the right to choose one’s religion is adhered to) and so I sit on the sidelines. For example, my fiancée is very religious (she would disagree, and prefer to be called “spiritual”, however, I argue that if one has esoteric beliefs, coupled with acknowledged practices, this is religion) while I’m agnostic on a sharp slope in favour of atheism. At best, in my reasoning, any possible supernatural existence is completely benign to the physical universe and thus should be ignored. But that’s me.
Yet any reader that follows the debate between science and religion would no doubt be aware of the recent illness of one of the most famous atheists, Christopher Hitchens.
Life threatening as cancer is, the coverage of Hitchens illness has been nothing short of appalling. I bulk at the stupid questions thrown at an ailing man. If I was fighting for my life, I wouldn’t want some pigheaded journalist reminding me just how close to death I may very well be. It seems from the reports that the vast majority are nothing but vultures waiting for him to expire so that they can catch his final words for the story of the year (in some circles). Indeed I believe there would be many journalists, creationists and atheists alike who would be very upset if (hopefully when) the news breaks that he has beaten this illness. To the people out there that think like this, I wish to let you know just how contemptibly disgusting I find your behaviour to be.
To the journalists who lick their lips in wait; you are nothing but a hack, a B-grade writer who appeals to the lowest of human behaviour for cheap thrills. You demonstrate yourself to be a worthless writer who does nothing productive for the human race.
To the religious who hope desperately for a last minute conversion; what does this prove for your case? Like a tortured confession, it is meaningless. If your beliefs were based on anything that could stand up to scientific investigation, you wouldn’t need such a futile and meaningless gesture to help you sleep easier at night. You expose yourself to be a fraud.
To the atheist longing for a martyrdom; you are an impostor and are no better than the most devout and contradictory of souls.
If anyone who fits into one of the three categories above wishes to comment, I’d only be too happy to address your appalling behaviour personally.
Do not forget that a man is fighting for his life and as one person who has spent some time around cancer suffers, I argue that what he needs and rightfully deserves is compassion and support – not blood thirsty morons out to prove an absurd point or hack writers out for a buck.