Should Christians Be Naïve and Simplistic?

It is Time for Christians to Re-Take the High Ground on Human Origins...







“When Richard Dawkins issues statements about God and about religion, to actually take him seriously is about as absurd as to take me seriously if I should suddenly start issuing statements in the discipline of advanced mathematical quantum physics!”

Robin A. Brace, B.D.

S ome while ago a lady complained to me because, as a Christian preacher/writer I occasionally get involved in areas which - strictly-speaking - are extraneous to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Just what was I doing (she demanded to know), writing about and making comments upon such things as the 'Global Warming' debate?


My response was that whilst we should all recognise the parameter and limits of what the gospel itself comprises, nevertheless, a Christian should, hopefully, be a generally deep-thinking and reasoning person. For example, I reject the teaching of Darwinism because it is bad science, moreover, Darwin (and his disciples), set out to willingly undermine the words of Holy Scripture. As a Christian theologian I must have a response to that. Evolution is, frankly, pseudo-science and today we have other forms of popular pseudo-science (such as the currently highly popular 'global warming' travelling circus). Since that whole movement is continually pushed forward by socialists, Marxists and atheists who will happily attack and seek to undermine Christianity wherever they can, I must have a response to that. As a Christian, I know that God actually sustains this planet; He is not going to allow a few million aerosol cans, or cars, or aeroplanes wreck this system which we all benefit from.


Thirty years ago I recall warning about the 'population explosion' people who were promising planet-wide calamity by 1985. At the time, I worshipped with some people who tended to believe all that hogwash. According to those old theories, India and China would soon be completely finished as viable nations - oh, these people could quote all manner of "well-accepted scientific data" to back-up their theories. But these people were not only wrong but quite spectacularly so! In fact, those two countries are amazing twenty-first century success stories. By the way, I am amazed that the 'population explosion' hysteriaists are now at it yet again having apparently forgotten the considerable collective 'eggs on the faces' of their 1970s/1980s counterparts!


My question today is: why do some people expect (and often hope) to find that Christians are a highly simplistic people who are not prepared to use human reason?



Are Human Origins Even a Valid Area for Scientific Theory?

David N. Menton Ph.D., Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA, has strongly questioned the right of modern science to even consider the question of human origins as a valid area for scientific theory. He explains it like this:

"Empirical science is the study of nature by means of the so-called scientific method. Powerful though it may be, empirical science does have three important requirements that limit the kind of questions it is best suited to answer.
First, empirical science must deal with objects or phenomena that are observable. Second, the phenomenon under study must be repeatable so it can be re-examined under controlled conditions. Finally, any hypothesis we might propose to explain a phenomenon must be testable by some critical experiment capable of disproving it (in the event the hypothesis is false). Hypotheses that repeatedly withstand tests that could disprove them are called theories.
Because of these limitations, the scientific method is best suited to studying things as they now exist. Empirical science can tell us much about how our existing eyes work, but it is severely limited in telling us how we came to have eyes in the first place. Thus, our attempts to explain origins (which occurred, obviously, long before you and I were around) are not technically scientific theories at all."
(source: http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar29.htm ).


People like Richard Dawkins would much prefer for Christians to merely go to church on Sundays, to sing hymns, and to communicate with one another in King James English. Dawkinsianism wants Christians to be firmly anti-intellectualist, day-dreaming romantic/poetic types; all very nice, 'homey,' warm and sentimental, of course, but nothing there for any towering intellectual (like himself!) to take too seriously. When we believers conform to this image, this simply serves to reinforce all such prejudices against us. Above all, the view which Dawkins has come to represent hates Christians to come up with scientific views or propositions about most anything, but especially about the origin of the human race. Most of the new aggressive brand of fundamentalist atheists, of whom Dawkins seems to have appointed himself as leader, absolutely loathe Creationists. Strange maybe, but they feel that we are wandering onto their territory when we discuss Divine Creation - they feel threatened by it. For our part, we certainly feel that they are wandering onto our territory when these people confidently pronounce that God does not exist - something, of course, which is certainly beyond the remit and limits of human scientific endeavour to successfully evaluate (as has been well-recognised in the past).


The fact that such individuals nevertheless confidently set out to issue philosophical/theological propositions which they are plainly unqualified to do, is a little like myself, as a Christian writer and theologian, suddenly coming up with certain new and complex mathematical formulations on advanced quantum physics, moreover, that I should then expect to receive widespread respect and gratitude from quantum physicists for my formulae! Dawkins seems to expect Christians to meekly and ever-so-gratefully thank him when he informs us that God does not exist. His temerity is almost beyond belief, however, he is unqualified in every way to issue theological statements. He is way outside his area of expertise, just as I would be by making statements on advanced quantum physics.


Creationism and the question of human origins is frankly our territory and always has been considered to be. Nobody doubted this for many centuries until the rise of people like Lyell and Darwin in the 19th century. Since that time 'scientism' (referring to untestable and non-evidenced philosophical naturalism based 'scientific' theory) has chosen to embrace, first of all, Darwinism and now Neo-Darwinism. You may find it hard to find any active, lecturing 'scientist' who is prepared to publically admit it (although, as I have discovered, they will often admit it privately as long as you promise not to quote any names) but the latter is actually a retreat from the fairy tale land of Origin of Species towards something which might find room for Mendelian genetics, and which jettisons Darwin's un-politically-correct excesses. It took many years for evolutionists to admit that Gregor Mendel was right about genetics, this is because he was an opponent of Darwinism. Only in the 20th century was it finally admitted that he was correct on genetics. But he was a Creationist, even though it is now sometimes claimed that he was an evolutionist! Interestingly, Professor of Sociology Steve Fuller has stated,

"The track record of Neo-Darwinism is parasitic on prior creationist breakthroughs over which Neo-Darwinists now claim sole ownership, and which creationists have yet to claim back as their own." (Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology, Warwick University, England, in 'Descent Over Descent: Intelligent Design Challenge to Darwinism.')

Meanwhile we certainly have to congratulate Darwin's apologists for so successfully erecting a smokescreen to hide their master's plagiarism, his most offensive form of racism and his misogyny but this they have certainly done. But they have not been able to hide the inspiration he gave to such 'worthy men' as Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung (after all, if 'survival of the fittest' is all that life is about, why not just go out and murder all your enemies? Moreover, to do so is no longer 'sinful,' under deified Natural Selection but becomes positively meritorious because this creed believes that the strong should survive and the weaker should be eradicated).


So when Richard Dawkins issues statements about God and about religion, to actually take him seriously is about as absurd as to take me seriously if I should suddenly start issuing statements in the discipline of advanced mathematical quantum physics! Dawkins is not a philosopher neither has he studied religion or theology; he is a biologist. I have communicated with several biologists: while they acknowledge him as a gifted communicator, they mostly do not take his ideas very seriously and are bemused at the apparent widespread public acceptance of his sometimes quite zany speculations and rants. I may say that his shortcomings and inabilities in the areas which he so unwisely wanders into, are made very plain in his 2006 book, 'The God Delusion' which, I'm afraid, thoroughly deserves the slating it has so widely received. See:

Dawkins' Delusional Dogma Defeated
Stop Behaving As If You Are God, Professor Dawkins,
Where Dawkins' Went Wrong.


The 'Pandora's Box' of the Enlightenment


Ranald Macaulay of UK Christian Heritage, delivers a Schaefferesque lecture on how the enlightenment led to the complete distortion of the Christian Gospel, it's taming, and re-presentation in more neutered form.
Ranald also shows how the enlightenment has led society back through Romanticism, Bohemianism, Hippyism and onto Paganism. See my chart which is based on Ranald's lecture. Make sure you view the page from the bottom up to get the full meaning.


As outstanding modern philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written of Dawkins' 2006 book,

"...Despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."
(Full Plantinga book review is here).


To take up the high ground position on the question of human origins, as 'scientism' has certainly, and quite brazenly done, would appear to assume that the whole gamut of Darwin's speculations now stand proven, but that is manifestly not so. Their position becomes more and more absurd as more and more of what Darwin originally wrote is now being cast into the trash bin.


Not long ago I heard of three men who regularly lecture on evolution discussing how much of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' can still be taken seriously; the very best (for Charlie boy) was 65%, the worst was 8-15%. Again, these were men who regularly lecture on evolution! Unfortunately (as is so often the case), when I sought permission to quote some more of their comments and also to quote their names, they quickly withdrew. The only further two comments I managed to get (unfortunately, names not quotable), were:

"Much of Darwinism is just not scientific,"

and,

"You have to understand that lecturing is our livelihood."


On another occasion, a senior reseach chemist who occasionally lectures here in the UK said to me,
"We have just got to get rid of Darwin before we can continue going forward. I support your serious pessimism about Darwin and his influence." (again my attempts to get permission to quote this man's name and to obtain fuller comments from him were frustrated at every turn). My Darwin article which this man had read, by the way, is here: Charles Darwin; It's Time for the Truth to be Told.


But Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism does not - I repeat - DOES NOT - stand virtually proven and vindicated in this early 21st century! The truth is that the abundant fossil record which Darwin had believed would be revealed within a hundred years of his death is indeed abundant but that record does not verify evolution, it repudiates it! What one actually has is the famous 'Cambrian Explosion' in which all life appears suddenly and together in fully developed form: this is the reality. This, of course, is not all; Molecular biologist Michael Behe has caused devout evolutionists even more problems with the principle of 'irreducible complexity.' His discoveries have broadened and expanded to the degree that only a fool now rejects them out-of-hand. Not surprisingly, Behe has received amazing abuse from the sort of people who should be in awe of his knowledge and ability, if they were truly serious about their own 'scientific' credentials; obviously some prefer the role of being Neo-Darwinian apologists.


Evolution has come to influence numerous areas by people who accept it's dogmas unquestionably. Why? It fits in with the world of no responsibility, but full human autonomy which they really want. There is no space for a God who demands obedience anywhere in that. As Michael Denton has pointed out,

"The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is really no hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of any age..." (p 358, Michael Denton, 'Evolution: a Theory in Crisis,' 1986).


Who - I can hear the question being asked - is Michael Denton?

He is an Australian author and biochemist who, in 1973, received a PhD in Biochemistry from King's College, London. His highly forthright book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), was partly instrumental in starting the Intelligent Design Movement, although it was not the only influence. It is true that Denton has changed his views more than once, yet prior to the 1980s it would probably have been unthinkable for such a senior UK-based biochemist to plainly reject evolution and to challenge it's widespread, yet unmerited influence.


But the overall point which I make here is that evolutionary apologists really have no rights to adopt the high ground when discussing human origins and to treat Creationists with utter contempt; they claim "scientific authority" when (as they know full well), Darwinism itself currently lies in tatters (they will not, of course, usually admit this).


So my conclusion is that when we Christians behave in a naive and simplistic manner, we play straight into the hands of people like Dawkins who really wants us to be like that. Yes, we should clearly know where the limits of the Gospel message are, and yet - beyond that, it is very healthy for us to be well-informed on a range of issues. Of course, regarding evolution, that certainly touches on the question of human origins which was always considered as our territory until the rise of Darwin. Since Neo-Darwinism now lies in a perilous state of disrepair, we believers should take heart and confidence and move to regain the high ground in what was always our own domain.
Robin A. Brace, January, 2009.



UK APOLOGETICS