Richard Dawkins: Call Charles Darwin the Comeback Kid

On November 24, 1859, exactly 150 years ago, the world was treated with the popularization of the theory of evolution through the first edition of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of the Species.”

Well, on this the 150th year anniversary call him the comeback kid: we have the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitckens, militant neo-atheists—who would like nothing more than to rid humanity of any semblance of belief in God.

In fact, in an interview with CNN, Dawkins, professor at Oxford, says, “”I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith” (read entire interview…)

CNN: What’s your sense of Darwin’s influence around the world?

Dawkins: Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don’t.

For a Richard Dawkins, belief in God is one of the world’s great evils, if not the greatest:

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the small-pox virus but harder to eradicate.  (quoted in Dembski’s The End of Christianity, p. 4)

The likes of Dawkins must be engaged and refuted intelligently.  Not dismissed a priori.

A few Christian thinkers are doing just that (see Alister McGrath The Dawkins Delusion?)

This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Richard Dawkins: Call Charles Darwin the Comeback Kid

  1. One can only reject evolution if they fail to understand it?

    The arrogance.

  2. Mike S. says:

    That’s funny. I did my undergrad in bio @ UCLA and I think I have a pretty good grasp of it and still think there’s just a lot of holes in the theory of evolution. That doesn’t mean I “reject” it entirely, but still.

    • T.C. R says:

      Mike S,
      A friend of mine majored in Biology on the Eastcoast and came away with more faith in the creator than before.

      Her explanation: the complexities and intricacies of it all (Psalm 139:12-13 comes to mind).

  3. Ranger says:

    I have a missionary friend who still does science in order to get clean water (and the gospel) to Chinese villages. He’s a Ph.D. from Berkeley in evolutionary biology who spent a few years teaching after finishing his Ph.D. and doing research, when one day he realized that the beauty of creation that he saw in his work was too compelling for him to not be doing everything he can to share the message of Jesus redeeming Creation with others.

    Science/Faith has always been a big topic for me, and whereas I’m not sure where I line up on the Creationism/ID/Evolution spectrum, I still love the topic. I was discussing these topics with my friend and he said he still strongly questions the ability of evolution by means of natural selection to account for everything. He’s an ID supporter.

    He said that while doing his doctorate, he handed “Darwin’s Black Box” to his doctoral advisor and asked if he had read it. The advisor literally threw it back at him and said, “Why would I waste my time? All the arguments have already been refuted by Ken Miller.” So he asked him which arguments had been refuted and received silence. He then asked how Ken Miller refuted the arguments and once again received silence. He then suggested to his advisor that if he were going to be so adamant about his opposition to ID that he actually read something by an IDist. He said that over the next year, his advisor read through some of the major ID books at the time and although he didn’t come around, he ended with a much greater respect for what they were saying.

    I found that interesting, because it’s not just common in this field. Of course, many ID supporters don’t understand evolution and many evolutionists don’t understand the ID arguments. Many Calvinists (me) don’t fully understand Arminian arguments and especially Open Theist arguments…but the same can be said for the other side. I used to have no respect for Arminians until I actually read some. I’m still Reformed as can be, but understand why my Arminians friends believe as they do.

    • T.C. R says:

      Thanks for sharing this. I find it amazing how the same data gathered from such research should lead each researcher to different conclusions.

      In the end, it really comes down to points of philosophy, not science or scripture.

  4. Glenn says:

    The data will always be the same, it is the ‘worldview glasses’ that are put on to view it that will determine how it is interpreted.

    To simplify understanding Evolutionism just remember that there are two distinct aspects to it – micro & macro – ‘Micro’ evolution is observable in the world around us and ‘Macro’ is not (and never will be)

    Micro = changes within a kind; for example all the variety in the dog world, but each breed is still a dog. Micro is observable and verifiable.

    Macro = supposed change from one distinct kind into another; for example a ape into a man or woman. Macro has never been observed, cannot be verified and no scientific advance has ever been dependent on it.

    The ‘bait & switch’ that is performed by evolutionists is to mix ‘micro’ & ‘macro’ together and then point at the ‘micro’ and pronounce evolution (by which they mean macro) to be proven.

    Professor Stephen J Gould (now deceased) admitted that he would support any evolutionary theory – no matter how off the wall or bizarre – rather than allow God one toe in the door.

  5. T.C. R says:

    What other course but the “micro” since the emergence of the conscientious humankind?

    At any rate, “micro” has been a part of the very fabric the observable universe, as you’ve outlined.

    Well, Aldous Huxley once said that he wanted there to be no God so he can give himself freely to his own erotomaia – perhaps Gould housed a similar notion. 😉

  6. Glenn says:

    To give him his due Professor Gould was a very honest man regarding his reasons for going along with anything ‘macro’ and as such stood out among his contemporaries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s