Evolution

The `High Pope of Darwinism` (Richard Dawkins) Is Caught in Tactic He Himself Uses Against Christians (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via The Blaze!

What a great point! from the video description:

Richard Dawkins and Giles Fraser discuss religious life in Britain, on the Today programme on BBC Radio (14/02/12).

Whilst declaring his incredulity that Christians do not know what the first book of the New Testament is, Fraser deftly counters by asking Dawkins what the full title of The Origin of Species is…

Here is the comments from The Blaze:

The epic clash between the two men, which was carried live on BBC Radio 4 in England, was centered upon a recent poll that purportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The controversial study was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which is run by the well-known non-believer. Among the findings, the study alleges that Christianity has lost its standing in the European nation. The study apparently found that nearly two-thirds of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament (Matthew).

Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians. It was at this point that the priest asked the atheist to name Darwin’s well-known evolutionary book.

“Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that,” Fraser said.

“Yes, I could,” Dawkins responded, clearly indicating that he was ready for the challenge.

“Go on then,” Fraser poked.

And this is where the situation turned awkward, as Dawkins simply couldn’t make his way through the book’s elongated title.

“‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled. “On The Origin Of Species.’ There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

Fraser, of course, seized upon the opportunity to make his point that not being able to name a book doesn‘t necessarily have anything to do with one’s deeply-held beliefs and convictions.

“You’re the high pope of Darwinism,” he said. “If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.‘ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.”

There is a lesson in this, however, pointed out to me via a cyber friend who has a wonderful apologetics site, he says this as an instruction both to me and to others:

Seems that the recent fracas with Dawkins and Fraser is good reason to lay down some brother rebuking of UK “Christians” more than an occasion to focus on Dawkins.

Shudder to think but I tend to agree with him more than Fraser. Since when is a Christian a person who self identifies as one? Can I call myself a tennis player if I have no tennis equipment, reject tennis rules and never get out on the court and play?

UK Christians have only themselves to blame for the fact that a personage such as Dawkins can call them out on their lack of possessing anything to do with Christianity except for an empty label. Fraser’ view comes very close to affirming that Dawkins himself is a Christian as Dawkins refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” meaning he rejects the same things that UK Christians do, he accepts that which they do (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but sees cultural benefits, etc.

Great points!

Q: Do you think evolution is true? Why or why not?

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was asked why I reject evolution, so I respond in short.

I think that microevolution is true, but I do not think that these small changes that occur in species (centimeter changes in bird beak sizes, or Great Danes to Chihuahua’s) mean that some day dogs will become cats. Evolution teaches that you came from a rock, Intelligent Design teaches that you came from a “hyper” intelligent Being, which would logically explain your ability to think and make choices. If you came from God you actually have the ability to have free-will, the evolutionist does not. Here I will quote a most interesting thought from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair, at Cambridge) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms dating all the way back to the Big-Bang?

C.S. Lewis puts this in an analogous form:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — [i.e. of atheistic evolution] — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” (Source)

Take note as well that there are many evolutionary theories “out there,” for instance: Punctuationist; Macromutationist; Neutral Selectionist; Structuralist; Natural Order Systematics; Transformed Cladist; Panspermia; Discontinuitist; Theistic Evolutionism; Darwinism; Neo-Darwinism. A theory that seems to be picking up more steam as of late comes from scientists who deal with bone structure… especially spinal disorders. One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. (I am not alone in other words… not that I am as “deep thinking” as some of these men and women.) There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

Science should not be:

“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

It should be:

“Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

Another reason I reject it is that it is untestable. In other words, “Explanations ~ To Be True Need Also To Be False“:

“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Skell, P.S., Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005; quoted by Jonathan Sarfati in Creation 36(4):1 September 2014.

PapaG