I recently complained to the BBC about an otherwise excellent programme presented by Chris Packham: Earth: Atmosphere (Series 1:4). Chris was speaking about what he called “the most important moment in the history of Earth”. The beginning of life. He spoke of the mystery of how and when and where life began, but spoke of it as “an instant of pure chance” to which I object strongly. If he’s right that it’s the most important moment in history, he is under a very strong obligation to choose his words carefully. This was my complaint:

Bias against theists 

Chris Packham: “So much of how life began is still a mystery. But we do know one day a living thing came into existence, the first microscopic organism. And in that instant of pure chance everything changed. The earth became a living world.”
I object, on behalf of all who believe in God, to a scientist presenting the view that life began by pure chance without acknowledging respectfully that a great many people, including respected scientists throughout the world, believe the process was somehow directed by God (or a higher power).
The implication is that an atheistic point of view is the only scientifically acceptable one, and this is biased and false.
Apart from no-platforming God, I enjoyed the program and the presenter. 

9 days later, while on holiday, I got this inadequate response from the BBC:

Dear Graham

Many thanks for taking the time to get in touch with us – we were naturally disappointed to hear of your unhappiness.

Whilst we appreciate your own personal view, we’d explain that the BBC is clear that evolution is a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are not claimed to be 100 per cent fact, but are established by being tested against factual evidence. That is how science works and progresses, and theories become a generally understood and accepted premise.

Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, and remains the best and most robust explanation for all the known factual evidence about life on Earth.

The details of evolution have been refined as new evidence has emerged, as happens with all scientific theories. However, no evidence or data has yet emerged that the fundamental principles of evolution are unable to accommodate.

We of course fully understand that different people will have their own individual leanings, scientific understandings and religious or other beliefs, but we hope you will also appreciate that we have to bear in mind generally accepted scientific principles with a general audience in mind.

Thank you again for your feedback, which is incredibly valuable for us. Alongside comments from other viewers and listeners, your points help us gain a snapshot of audience opinion which we can then report back to senior figures across the BBC. This process helps us identify opinions and trends, all of which can help shape our future decisions on programmes and policies.

Kind Regards,

Craig Osborne

BBC Complaints Team 
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

This is the response I sent today:

The BBC response to my complaint was entirely misdirected, not to say patronising. “We’d explain that the BBC is clear that evolution is a scientific theory.” I never mentioned evolution, and I have no problem with the basic tenets of evolution. It appears that the respondent, Craig Osborne, has simply churned out a standard response to a complaint I did not make.
I was very specific on the focus of my complaint: not to deny evolution, but to to complain that to call the beginning of life “that instance of pure chance” reflects prejudice against those who believe that the beginning of life on earth was not an accident of pure chance. That is NOT a denial of evolution. Science can only say that it happened. It cannot state unequivocally that it was pure chance. At the very least it must acknowledge the possibility of alternative explanations of this mystery. And the BBC should acknowledge this too.
I look forward to a better response. Thank you.

I’ll let you know what reply I get.