Bible Teaching

 

Spiritual Alternatives

 

Current Issues

 

Deception in the Church

 

Europe

 

Islam

 

Israel & Middle East

 

Jesus the Messiah

 

Moral Issues

 

One World System

 

One World Religion

 

Persecution

 

Science & Evolution

Bible Teachings
Alternatives
CurrentIssues
Deception
Europe
Islam
Israel&ME
Jesus
Morals
System
Religion
Persecution
Science

Topics Menu

We are a Christian Fellowship meeting in North London with a strong interest in teaching the Bible and understanding our time in

the light of Bible prophecy

Home
About Us
Beliefs
Meetings
Location
Articles
Resources
Contact
Bridge Lane
Vimeo

Open letter to Richard Dawkins and Channel 4

Channel 4 TV station broadcast two programmes in January entitled The Root

of All Evil? in which Professor Richard Dawkins, sometimes known as the

evangelist for atheism, rubbished the idea of God’s existence. Although the

programme was meant to be asking whether religion is the root of all evil,

it was clear that the main focus of Dawkins attack was Christianity. He

took some side swipes at Judaism and Islam, but 90% of the programme was a

sustained attack on the Christian faith. I wrote the letter below to

Professor Dawkins and to Channel 4, in the hope that Christians who have an

understanding of the issues he raised might be able to challenge him

publicly. Unfortunately the media appears only interested in presenting our

faith in a bad light and to date I have received no positive response. Below

is the letter I sent.

 

Dear Professor Hawkins

 

I watched your programme broadcast on 16th January on Channel 4. You

expressed indignation that Christians and Jews should be allowed to teach

their faith to their children. Does it ever occur to you that what you

believe about the origin of life is equally a faith which is to be

accepted without question by millions of children and adults who are taught

it in the education system and the media?

 

Since none of us were there when life began everything we believe about it

is an act of faith. You are reading back into time supposedly scientific

conclusions, which are actually extremely questionable. I have never found a

satisfactory explanation from evolutionists for some very basic questions

about your theory.

 

1. Where did the matter which exploded in the Big Bang come from?

 

2. If the Big Bang is the explanation for the existence of the universe, how

did an ordered world come into being out of something which would have

generated disorder (an explosion)? Our observation of explosions (e.g. a

bomb going off) shows that they cause matter to move from order to disorder,

not disorder to order. How can you explain our marvellous planet which has

all the hugely complex parameters necessary for life (distance from the sun,

atmosphere, water cycle, soil, plants able to provide food etc) coming into

being by a random process?

 

3. Darwin himself had little to say about the origin of the first life form

by the forces of natural selection. Since the discovery of DNA we now know

that there are no simple life forms but every cell contains a huge amount of

information. To believe that this could have come about by random forces is

the equivalent of believing the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica

could have been put there in the same way. According to your belief not only

did such incredibly complex matter have to arise by accident it also had to

have the power to reproduce itself otherwise the arrival of life would have

been no more than a very temporary blip on the evolutionary horizon. All

reproductive systems are highly complex but vital to the survival of the

species.

 

4. Darwin acknowledged that 'to suppose that the eye could have been formed

by natural selection (evolution) seems absurd in the highest possible

degree.' You are on record as saying that 'it would only take about 364,000

generations to evolve a good fish eye with a lens.' This does not explain

how a creature which needs sight to survive managed to carry on living for

all these millions of years without eyes. Hugely complex organs like the

eye, the heart, the brain etc are all vital to survival. Even more vital are

the reproductive systems of creatures. All creatures that reproduce sexually

require a perfectly functioning male and female to produce the next

generation. How can such a system have developed over millions of years of

trial and error as must be assumed by evolution? If the system is not

functioning in the first generation the species dies out. The Genesis record

that God made all creatures able to reproduce after their own kind makes

much more sense on this issue than the conclusion of evolution.

 

5. Darwin acknowledged the absence of transitional forms in the fossil

record and in observable life forms. There is no problem in believing in

variation within species (short beaked and long beaked finches etc). But

there is absolutely no evidence of variation from one species to another

taking place or in the fossil record. There are also huge problems with this

theory. For example how did the first bird develop the power to fly? If

wings evolved over millions of years during the time they were evolving they

would have been an encumbrance not an advantage. What would stop cat eating

bird before the bird developed its wings? In which case bird species dies

out before it learns to fly!

 

No doubt you have answers to these questions which satisfy you, but they do

not satisfy everyone. You are asking people to believe that something could

come out of nothing, that an explosion could create an ordered universe,

that incredibly complex life forms could arise spontaneously out of non life

and have the ability to reproduce and develop higher life forms. I dont

believe this! But you are allowed to teach this to our children and to

ridicule those who don’t believe your theory on TV without giving them a

fair opportunity to give a reasoned defence of your faith. The Christians

you chose to interview were either on the very wacky end of the US

evangelical scene like the man who agreed with killing those who work in

abortion clinics or liberals like the Bishop of Oxford who agrees more with

you than with what the Bible teaches.

 

On the subject of the Bible, your highly selective use of quotations to

pillory the God of the Bible as a sadist ignored context and the overall

teaching of the book. The significance of the Abraham and Isaac story is

that Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. Child sacrifice was common in the

pagan religions of the tribes around Israel at the time and is consistently

condemned in the Bible. In our time child sacrifice has again returned as we

sacrifice unborn children to our gods of convenience and lust. There is a

deeper message about faith in Genesis 22 which is beyond the scope of this

letter. The incident of the man sending his daughter out to be raped by the

mob in Judges 19 is hardly held up as a model of practice in the Bible! As

the Bible is a realistic book it tells it like it is and does not gloss over

gross acts. The period of the Judges is summed up in the last verse of the

book Everyone did what was right in his own eyes  i.e. everyone did their

own thing rather than doing what was right in the eyes of God  rather like

today!

 

Finally your view that supposedly scientific developments and the influence

of evolution have always exercised a benign influence on the human race does

not stand up to examination. Nietzsche, a disciple of Darwinism, wrote in

his diatribe against Christianity, The Antichrist, Pity on the whole

thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves

what is ripe for destruction; it defends lifes disinherited and condemned.

The Nazis took hold of this idea to justify eliminating what they considered

to be life’s disinherited and condemned in the Holocaust. On the other

side of the same coin, the Soviet Communists used pamphlets like The part

played by labour in the transition from ape to man written by Engels as the

basis for their indoctrination of society with atheism and evolutionism. The

end result was the gulags and the KGB and the persecution of non believers

in Soviet atheism (in particular believing Christians).

 

Not many people would agree that we are doing as marvellously in the moral

sphere in our present society as you concluded in your programme. In fact we

are on the brink of a collapse of the whole social and economic order as

drug taking and alcoholism, sexual immorality, pornography and the breakdown

of the family, violence and debt spiral out of control. We are fouling up

the only planet we can live on and creating weapons of destruction which

threaten the whole survival of humanity. All these things happening can be

seen as the result of a rejection of God and the salvation offered us

through the Lord Jesus Christ, not the result of following Him.

 

It would be interesting if Channel 4 or the like would be willing to put on

a real debate on these issues, with Christians who know what they are

talking about.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Tony Pearce.

T

T