LET’S GRAB THE CHILDREN WHILE WE CAN

Some time back a few newspapers carried the story that the World (in)Famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins, had brought out yet another book. This time it was a book aimed specifically at children and employed child-friendly language to explain that science was better than religion at explaining the way the natural world works. To grab their interest he writes: Stories are fun, and we love to repeat them, but to claim a supernatural explanation of something is not to explain it at all.
Ordinarily I would not bother much with what our Mr Dawkins thinks or writes about, but given that he has now delved into the realm of indoctrinating children, I will confess to having my interest sparked somewhat. Is it perhaps because grownups find his beliefs and pronouncements tedious in the extreme that he hopes to find a more accepting audience in the younger market? Or is it perhaps he finds a need to constantly be in the news?
During a recent interview with Mr. Medved, (Author, political commentator, radio show host and film critic), Mr. Dawkins was asked if it was intellectually necessary to level criticism at religion, to which he replied in his usual convoluted and confused way:
Not only is religion just as bad as an infectious disease, it is also a form of child abuse. I think the effect of all religious faith is negative….I think that faith teaches you to believe something without evidence, and that shuts your mind off….As a scientist and an educator, I’m against the idea of faith – the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it. In other words my primary opposition to religion is that it is based upon believing things without evidence.
I’m not sure just what evidence Mr Dawkins is looking for that would persuade him that he is perhaps barking up the wrong tree. He speaks of faith as being negative. That it teaches you to believe something without evidence and that it shuts your mind off. To what? I ask. What am I shutting my mind off to when I sit at my computer each day? Is it the faith I have that it will work when I press the ‘on’ switch. Is it the faith I have that my chair will hold me up when I sit on it? Or is this not the type of faith he is talking about? Perhaps it is a faith which goes deeper than mere things that surround us each and everyday. Perhaps it is faith in something far larger, like the sun, which is there each day bringing light to the world, or is it the moon and stars which come out at night. Or is it faith in God, a Creator which seems to wind Mr Dawkins up no end because he does not wish to be associated with Him? Which of these does he require evidence of?
It is pretty clear in my mind that nobody becomes an atheist for scientific or intellectual reasons. They become atheistic emotionally.
It is the emotions that drive them to do what they do.
It is the emotions that drive them to great lengths to persuade others that there is no God and therefore no Creator.
It is the emotions that cause them to stick their fingers in their ears so they can block out the evidence they crave for.
Mr Dawkins then went on to demand: One test for a god that anyone can replicate, and he will convert the entire world, to that god. That’s the difference, he says, in faith-based on belief, and reason based belief and that it is summed up in one word: EVIDENCE.
In other words he demands that evidence be supplied.
After reading this demand of his, I could not help but think of what it says in the Bible. More specifically in Hebrews Chapter 11:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (v1)
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (v3)
Without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (v6)
I can think of no better explanation than that of William MacDonald who has put it like this: These verses of Scripture are not strictly speaking a proper definition of faith; it is a description of what faith does for us. It makes things hoped for as real as if we already had them, and it provides unshakable evidence that the unseen, spiritual blessings of Christianity are absolutely certain and real. In other words, it brings the future within the present and makes the invisible seen.
Mr Dawkins demands one test for a ‘god’ that can be replicated and he will convert the world to that god, so it is to the Scriptures I will once again turn.
And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted His raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided Him, saying, He saved others; let Him save Himself if He be the Christ, the chosen of God.
Luke 23:33-35
Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. Mark 15:32
Evidence that there is a God, surrounds all of us, every single day of our lives, and like those of old, Mr Dawkins demands yet more evidence. Jesus spent about 3 years of His adult life proving, over and over again, who He was. He supplied evidence by the shed- load, day after day. He healed the sick, He gave the blind their sight back, He raised the dead. He told them who He was. He challenged them to check out their own Scriptures which prophesied who He was, why He came and what was going to happen to Him – IN THE MINUTEST DETAIL – and still that was not enough.
Their last words to Him were: Come down from the Cross and then we will believe!
Mr Dawkins’ words/demands are no different.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1 Corinthians 15
I’m not sure that I can offer one test for a god that can be replicated that will satisfy Mr Dawkins’ demand for evidence, but what I can offer him is irrefutable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by upwards of 500 people which would be more than adequate evidence acceptable in any court of law anywhere in the world, but, given his emotional state and prejudice against anything to do with the Bible, this would, in all probability, be pushed aside as insufficient and yet if he would put some effort into a little proper research, Mr Dawkins would discover that the Bible and its contents are fact! Not fiction.
- That it has NEVER been proved wrong.
- That its claims can easily be proved.
- That the proof he demands lies in one word: PROPHECY.
- That there are hundreds of prophecies relating to Jesus Christ alone, written by different authors, hundreds and hundreds of years before He was even born.
- That each and every prophecy was 100% accurate. Not 99%. 100% accurate!
- That this can be said of no other book ever written in the entire world, and the sad thing about it is that Mr Dawkins cares nothing for this titanic volume of evidence which he can’t even be bothered to read for himself.
Doctor R. Torrey has said: For centuries the assault upon the Bible has continued. Every engine of destruction that human philosophy, human science, human reason, human art, human cunning, human force and human brutality could bring to bear against a book has been brought to bear against the Bible, and yet it stands absolutely unshaken to this very day. Note the word – unshaken!
The reason Mr Dawkins relentlessly attacks the Bible and Christians is that he cannot be bothered to carry out any research of his own. In fact one of his peers is quoted as saying:
For all his fervent enthusiasm for science, Dawkins shows very little interest in asking what scientific knowledge is or how it comes to be possible. There are many philosophies of science. Among them is empiricism, which maintains that scientific knowledge extends only so far as observation and experiment can reach; realism, which holds that science can give an account of parts of the world that can never be observed; irrealism, according to which there is no one truth of things to which scientific theories approximate; and pragmatism, which views science theories as useful tools for organizing and controlling experience. If he is aware of these divergent philosophies, Dawkins never discusses them. His attitude to science is that of a practitioner who does not need to bother with philosophical questions. Whether he wants to continue to stick his fingers in his ears or not, the universe didn’t create itself. His personal incredulity isn’t good enough. It is not a question of if it was created, it is a question of, by whom.
On another level, which, by the way, illustrates a lack of research and logical thinking on the part of Mr Dawkins is his dogmatic belief and wholesale acceptance of evolution. The fact that no-one has ever observed a species changing into another species never seems to phase him. The fact that evolutionists believe that we all came into being after a big explosion in outer space and began evolving into what we are today from a slime like mixture over billions and billions of years, (the panacea for: we don’t really know!) doesn’t seem to bother him in the slightest.
- Fact – Evolution says once life got there, then evolution proceeded by random chance, but no-one seems bothered to pinpoint where ‘there’ is, or how it got there.
- Fact – There is no origin to life in evolution.
- Fact – Naturalists have no origin to life in their dogmatic world-view.
- Fact – Darwin’s assumptions about the cell were completely wrong.
- Fact – Life never comes from non-life.
- Fact – Information never comes from non-information.
- Fact – Evolution can not be confirmed via the scientific method, and yet we are told that those who do not believe in evolution (read – demand evidence!) are not right in the head!
- Fact – If evolution supposedly came about under horrifically inhospitable conditions, why then don’t we see it magically appearing under current hospitable conditions?
- Fact – Evolution tells us that we are all evolving, if this is true, what is wrong with some ‘evolvees’ evolving a religion? Surely they are only doing what their evolving genes are telling them to do! What else can they do?
- Fact – Who authorised Mr Dawkins to mount a crusade to put a stop to Religion?
- Fact – Who sanctioned his views and approved his methods?
- Fact – Who gave him permission and empowered him to launch attacks against those who are evolving their own set of values?
- Fact – If it wasn’t his evolving genes evolving him to do so, it must be his emotions getting the better of him. But then he must explain how emotions evolved, being as they are, non-material and therefore incapable of evolving.
- Fact – Mr Dawkins’ blind, dogmatic wishful thinking fails miserably, the common sense test.
- Fact – Why is Mr Dawkins’ common sense not so common?
Mr Dawkins unwittingly reveals the sense of his mission he has set himself in the world near the end of his book aimed at children in which he writes the following: Intelligent life on a planet comes of an age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilisation, is: “Have they discovered evolution yet?” Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin.
I will confess that I had to read and re-read this mission statement several times before coming to the conclusion that, had it been written by anyone else, it would have been dismissed by all and sundry as utter nonsense! But the fact that it was written by a Scientist and Educator of the highest order, boggles the mind!
1. Mr Dawkins should provide EVIDENCE of where intelligent life comes from and why it is there in the first place, including where it obtained its intelligence from?
2. He must explain what it means to come of age, how it does this, and why it would find the need to do so?
3. He must explain (read provide evidence) that this ‘life’ is even capable of working out anything, let alone the reason for its own existence.
4. His reference to superior creatures from space indicates a very confused thought pattern, and just why they (if they actually exist) would want to visit us or even take the slightest bit of notice of us? I for one, am hoping they have not noticed us and never do, because if they knew what a nasty, murderous bunch the human race is they would in all probability refuse our invitation to afternoon tea!
5. He must explain how he knows that they are superior creatures? Why would they be superior to people on earth? Perhaps in his dreams they appear more intelligent? How does he know what their first question will be? I wonder if they speak English! How does he know living organisms have existed on earth for over three thousand million years? Does he have even the slightest concept of what three thousand million years represents? Who actually measured this enormous length of time? How was it calculated? Where did he get these facts from? What EVIDENCE has he got that would encourage us to believe what he says?
For all intents and purposes he is living at the bottom of the garden with the fairies and would like to go down in history as a modern-day Charles Darwin, which I suppose is fitting because, he too was a man who was very mixed up both mentally and emotionally, so in all probability they would be good company for one another.
Another of Mr Dawkins’ peers has put it like this:
Several of the traits that Dawkins displays in his campaign against religion are on show here. There is his equation of superiority with cleverness: the visiting aliens are more advanced creatures than humans because they are smarter and know more than humans do. The theory of evolution by natural selection is treated not as a fallible theory – the best account we have so far of how life emerged and developed – but as an unalterable truth, which has been revealed to a single individual of transcendent genius. There cannot be much doubt that Dawkins sees himself as a Darwin-like-figure, propagating the revelation that came to the Victorian naturalist. If we are survival machines, it is unclear how ‘we’ can decide anything. The idea of free will, after all, comes from religion and NOT from science. Unsurprisingly this is something that Dawkins never explores.
Another subject which is swept aside by Mr Dawkins, probably because it would upset his way of thinking, is the issue regarding the human mind. If the human mind supposedly evolved in obedience to the crucial necessities of survival, what possible reason is there for thinking that it can acquire knowledge of reality? What possible reason could there be for the mind to even attempt to work out the reason for its own existence, when all that is required of it, in order to reproduce the species, is that its errors and illusions are not fatal? The simple facts are that an evolutionist’s philosophy cannot and never will account for the knowledge the human mind actually possesses. The solution is amazingly simple and uncomplicated:
Humans can gain access to the truth only because the human mind was shaped by a Divine mind, something which Mr Dawkins loathes to hear.
Yet another of Dawkins’ peers has penned: Dawkins knows practically nothing of the philosophy of science, still less about theology or the history of religion. From his point of view, he has no need to know. He can deduce everything he wants to say from first principles. Religion is a type of supernatural belief, which is irrational, and we will all be better off without it. Sadly with all the baggage (read garbage) and paraphernalia of evolution, this is the sum total of Dawkins’ argument for atheism. His attack on religion has a crudity that would make a militant Victorian unbeliever such as T.H. Huxley, blush scarlet with embarrassment. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others and that it has never occurred to him, that to many people, he appears as a comic figure.
For all intents and purposes, Mr Dawkins has made his mind up, (it was years ago), and his pet theories are presented as fact. And worse still, anyone who dares to disagree, or presents evidence not in the Dawkins equation, is treated as either an unscientific crackpot, or as some kind of religious fundamentalist.
Many of the points he presents as fact have not been proven and as a scientist he should be the first to acknowledge this, therefore his honesty regarding what he stands for as a scientist is questionable together with his ‘wisdom’. There is nothing wrong with presenting theories as theories, but Mr Dawkins presents his theories as fact with the conviction of a religious zealot. No-one can question him. He is right! You are wrong! Yet another of his peers has stated: Dawkins commits scientific treason when he disregards points that are opposed to his thinking.
Returning to my opening remarks at the beginning of this post, I think it is fair to say that Mr Dawkins feels the need to get into the ‘indoctrination business’ and is now targeting children in the hope that by getting to them when they are young, he will not have to deal with them when they are older because they would, by then, be sufficiently brainwashed.
So in the interests of fairness, I looked up the word indoctrination, and it means:
- programming
- propaganda
- brainwashing
- training
- teaching
- coaching
It is a known fact that educationists are well aware of how vulnerable children are, because in the main, they copy what they see and hear. They mimic those around them especially those who they look up to. If their parents curse and swear, they too will curse and swear. If they see adults arguing and fighting, chances are they will grow up with aggressive tendencies. The Jesuit proverb, Give me the child for his first seven years, and I will give you the man, is no less true today than it was back then. What I have a real problem with is not so much what the Jesuits taught the children, but the content of Mr Dawkins’ teaching. Just how he can replace what God intended children should be taught with what he intends teaching them, is beyond comprehension. Dawkins’ explanation for targeting children must go down in history as one of the worst excuses ever invented:
The inclination to religion is a misfire of the brain. It was, indeed, a product of evolutionary processes which means somehow it was necessary to select.
“A misfire of the brain.” An utterly pathetic reason if ever there was one, and just how Mr Dawkins knows about this so-called ‘misfire’, is mind-boggling in the extreme.
The trust he has is a spider’s web. Tentacles reaching all points of the compass in attempts to justify the faith he thinks he has. see Job 8:13-14
Mr Dawkins may have some very impressive credentials and qualifications and a prestigious position at Oxford University. He may be very scholarly and have an abundance of knowledge about animals, insects and such like, but he is without a shadow of doubt, utterly incompetent when it comes to teaching anything regarding Biblical Christianity, or even coming close to a basic understanding of it, for the simple reason that the things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned, and unless he is born again he will never, ever have any understanding of the things of God, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. It is only when a person admits he/she is a sinner and invites Jesus Christ into their life to take up residence, are their eyes opened and their spirit awakened. Until that happens, the things of God are a closed book!
To illustrate this gulf between what Mr Dawkins thinks he knows and the actual truth of what he does not know or understand, we will turn again to the Scriptures where Jesus gives a parable for everyone to muse over:
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in torment in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16: 19-31
Please note the words: gulf and fixed.
May I suggest that this portion of Scripture from Luke’s Gospel be read and re-read until the enormity and urgency of what its message is conveying sinks into the mind and remains there!
There is so much more one could write concerning Mr Dawkins and his latest quest to prove to the world that he has the keys to all knowledge, but for the sake of brevity I will call closure on this topic for the time being and leave you with a thought to ponder.
Atheism is the most depressing belief there is. It is not the ‘noises’ of reasonable people. It is completely unreasonable! It is a cold, unfeeling, empty pit which houses a cacophony of lies, deceit and fraud, and with its close relative, evolution, is leading millions to an eternal hell, and I find it very strange indeed that once a person becomes an atheist, they feel compelled to make sure that everyone else believes the same as they do. Mr Dawkins likens ‘religion’ to a form of child abuse in a last-ditch attempt to give his methods of indoctrination a semblance of respectability when it is blatantly obvious that his is the greatest abuse anyone could commit. The Scriptures are very clear indeed on the subject of what will happen to anyone who harms a child. (See Matthew 18:1-6). Let the words of v6 in particular, sink in! Please read them!
If we are to believe the atheists, all we have to look forward to in this life is a blind, black pitiless existence with no hope, when with a little thought and honesty we could exchange it for a wonderful life during which we discover the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings and what it cost Him to bring us back into a proper relationship with our Creator. And if that is not enough, when our time here on earth is up, we can, with great confidence and joy, look forward to a blissful eternity with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
I know for an absolute certainty which I would choose!