I don't know the answer to this, but I was more than a little worried when I thumbed through one of their books in a charity shop recently.

 

From the very start it alluded to creation/creator and then reflected that evolution was a secular term.

 

It may be the author was trying to appeal to both sides, but surely, the WWF should be promoting science, n' est pas? Also referring to evolution as secular is surely rather revealing?

 

I have to admit to being one of the (possibly few) who agrees that we should let the giant panda die out and dedicate the limited resources we have to saving species that actually having a chance - rather than attempting to save a cuddly bear that evolution (and therefore, nature itself) has already given up on.

Tags: WWW, evolution, panda

Views: 40

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not sure that would be entirely feasible as there would be a problem of genetic diversity.  Perhaps if we start collecting as many genomic samples from all living pandas (and as many dead as we can find) and preserve them for future use.  Then of course we'd have to find a surrogate that could carry them, and a way to make artificial ova...lots of hurdles.
Copy off your data, format the sucker, and call it a day.  Any computer that doesn't have an actual hardware failure will run better with at least yearly formats.
Jesse Ventura was an Atheist when he was in the WWF... ;-)
Yeah, a crazed conspiracy-theorist, but an atheist.
ROFLMAO!

Not sure if it is important that WWF is a promoter of the "creator" or such nonsense. What is important is the good that they do for the planet and the animals. If there are religious folks who hold that they believe in the supernatural, fine just don't prosyletize me; and if they can, in the end, do for the good of us all, then who am I to criticize negatively good works by anyone? It is the Religious Right that are the pissers, they have taken over a major political party, and spew so much harmful babble in the form of hatred towards others, be they gay, environmentalists, abortionists, women, whomever, they have gained a suck a strong foothold in the scheme of things since the founding of the Moral Majority, which was neither, and if there ever was an oxymoron truer, I am not aware of it.

I guess my point is that the WWF's possible associations with the status quo religions is not such a issue as is the dangerous intentions of Dominionists and the Religious Right, who want all the world's authorities, be they judicial, governmental, or social, to be a theocratic monopoly based on their very narrow bigoted view of religion. To me, that is a more important outrage, and there are so many things, especially politically, to be outraged about, particularly in the USA. Growing political corporate power and influence on elections and gov't policies is the greater danger, then, too, as the Religious Right and the wealthy corporatists vy for gain and advantage in their intentions to take over the US Democracy. "Fascism should be more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the merger of the corporations to the state." Benito Mussolini

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service