Following the April 29 opening of their documentary The Unbelievers at Toronto’s Hot Docs Film Festival, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussed the merits of their approaches to “ridding the world of religion.” In a recent interview with Steve Paikin,1 they made it clear that, despite their sometimes different personas, they have the same agenda—getting people to get rid of their belief in God. Yet they both say that Christians should not feel “threatened” by their efforts to expunge religion from human history.

The Unbelievers

Outspoken atheists Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, costars of the documentary The Unbelievers, discuss their strategy for ridding the world of religion in general and Christianity in particular. They consider Christianity “demeaning” and wish to re-design society “the way we want it.” Image: screen shots from interview with Steve Paikin on http://ww3.tvo.org/video/190768/rise-new-atheists

The Goal of The Unbelievers Documentary

Evolutionary biologist Dawkins and theoretical physicist Krauss recounted that when they first met they had a heated debate about, as Dawkins said, “whether we should have a kind of full-on attack on religion or whether we should, as Lawrence preferred, seduce them.”2 Krauss explained that this is really “a strategic question.”3 They agree that both approaches have merit depending on the nature of the people being targeted. However, expressing general agreement with the more confrontational approach of the often-irascible Dawkins, Krauss said, “You’ve got to confront silly beliefs by telling them they are silly,” adding, “If you’re trying to convince people, pointing out that what they believe is nonsense is a better way to bring them around.”4

Despite their great hostility toward religious beliefs (other than their own) and avowal that they hope this film will help in their efforts to eradicate all religion worldwide, the atheist pair indicates that belief or non-belief in a deity is not what really matters to them. Krauss declares that what is actually important to them is that “everything should be open to question and that the universe is a remarkable place.”5 By contrast, he says, “This is more important to us than not believing in God—that’s not important at all.” Dawkins and Krauss both expressed grudging tolerance for evolutionists who want to keep their religious beliefs in order to keep the good things religion offers them—“spirituality,” “consolation,” and “community”—so long as they do not then reject evolution.6 They said that people are “hard-wired” to seek something spiritual, but by “spiritual” they refer to a sort of emotional high. And they declare that science offers a better kind of spirituality, “a sense of oneness with the universe.”7 Therefore science,8 they maintain, can meet the inmost needs of people better than religion of any sort.

“Spirituality is a sense of awe and wonder at something bigger than oneself,”9 Krauss explained, adding that being “insignificant is uplifting.”10 And while some people cling to their religion to satisfy some spiritual need,11 he says, “The spirituality of science is better than the spirituality of religion because it is real.”12 Both of course vigorously deny that their own atheistic position is one of “belief,” saying “we don’t define ourselves by what we don’t believe in.”

Dawkins and Krauss Want to Rid the World of All Religion Except Their Own

Like most atheists, Dawkins and Krauss fail to recognize the worldview-based nature of the interpretations they define as “real.” They repeatedly refer in the interview to accepting the “evidence of reality” concerning origins when they are actually equating their worldview-based interpretations with reality. Furthermore, the atheistic belief that there is no God is actually a “religion.”

There really is no such thing as a person without a religion—you either believe that there is or is not a god. You are either for Christ or against Him (Luke 11:23), and you base your interpretation of origins, morality, and the meaning of life on that belief. The belief that there is or is not a god is essential to how one explains existence, the nature of authority, and our place in the universe. Krauss’s belief that the atoms in his body originated billions of years ago in stardust, for instance, is the “religious” way he explains his existence without God and the way he experiences what passes for spirituality by knowing the “fantastic” truth that he is “intimately connected to the cosmos.”

Atheists do claim to be non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation (e.g., the universe) rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). Krauss extols the profound sense of wonder he gets studying the cosmos and Dawkins enjoys the “poetry of science,” but they tie their love for science to their belief in atheistic evolution and their sheer joy in shaking their fists at the possibility of a Creator’s existence.

The Reason Behind the Hostility Toward Religion

And frankly, the point here is not whether a person defines their worldview as a religion or not, or whether he believes in a “god.” Christianity is unique—it is the truth—and, perhaps for that reason as much as any other, is the especial target for Dawkins and most others. Those who love “darkness” (e.g., sin, rebellion against God, and rejection of Jesus Christ) will naturally attack the light (John 3:19–21). Based on Scripture, we know that God looks at the heart to see how each person stands in relation to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9–10; cf. 1 Samuel 16:7). Again, Jesus made clear that a person is either for or against Him (Matthew 12:30; 25:46).

Dawkins and Krauss reserve their greatest hostility for young-earth creationists. They indicated that all debate about origins has been completely settled by “Darwin and his successors”13 and by big bang cosmology,14 which Krauss describes as “the last bastion of God—I mean there are some fundamentalists of course who say the earth is 6,000 years old and don’t believe in evolution—but rational ‘theologians’ have moved away from that debate.”15

Design in Nature

Furthermore, even Dawkins admits that nature—in particular, biology—appears to be specially designed. We see, for instance, precise irreducible complexity everywhere we look, from major anatomical features to biological processes at the molecular level. Dawkins agrees that “special creation” is “intuitive”—a look at nature in essence screams that there must have been a Creator. But Dawkins says that he is thankful to Darwin for coming up with a very “non-intuitive” way to explain nature without God. Darwinian belief basically builds a theoretical guess about biological origins by appealing to a series of billions of tiny, unobservable changes over billions of unobserved years.16 Yet neither Darwin nor his successors have through scientific observation shown how either abiogenesis or the evolution of biological complexity is possible.

Dawkins explains that both biology and physics (cosmology) are complementary fields that supplant belief in God.17 But he indicated that biology, because design is so apparent, was the first battleground in the war against a Creator. He said the following:

Historically biology, I suppose, has been the most fertile ground for those who wish to make a supernatural account because living things are so fantastically complicated and beautiful and elegant, and they carry such an enormous weight of apparent design. They really look as though they’re designed.

So historically biology has been the most fertile ground for theological arguments. That’s all solved now. Darwin and his successors solved that.

I think the spotlight in a way has shifted to physics and to cosmology where we’re less confident I think about how the universe began—in one way more confident because there’s a lot of detailed mathematical modeling going on—but there are some profound questions remaining to be answered in that field and that’s where cosmologists like Lawrence come in. We are complementary.”

In typical fashion, Krauss and Dawkins believe that anyone who disagrees with their own interpretations about origins is irrational and out of touch with reality. And as happens with most lay people, anything that can be “mathematically modeled” is accepted as truth because numbers surely do not lie. Yet mathematical models concerning cosmology (like the big bang) and the long-age interpretations ascribed to radiometric dating are based on unverifiable, worldview-based assumptions.18 Dawkins and Krauss say that they hope that viewers of their film will be inspired by the wonders of science to critically evaluate their beliefs and to acknowledge that they are “silly.” As discussed below however, from a biblical worldview, a careful study of the wonders of science only affirms what God reveals in the Bible and actually glorifies the Creator (Psalm 19:1; Colossians 1:16–17).

Biblical creationists understand that God created all the various kinds of living organisms about 6,000 years ago (based on the genealogies listed in the Bible). According to Genesis chapter one, God equipped each to reproduce “after their kinds.” There is no indication in Scripture that God used evolutionary processes or that He made organisms able to evolve through random processes into new and increasingly complex kinds of creatures. We also do not see this happen in biology. As many articles on this website explain, organisms vary within their kinds (e.g., variations in dogs or in cats) but do not evolve into new, more complex kinds of organisms (e.g., amoebas into dogs or cats). Bacteria remain bacteria, canines remain canines, apes remain apes, and humans remain humans—though there is much biodiversity among each created kind. This diversification within kinds is observable. But evolution of new kinds is not, and biological observation can offer no actual mechanisms by which this can happen.19

Further, biological observation confirms that living things do not spring into existence through the random interaction of non-living components, despite evolutionary claims about abiogenesis. This is consistent with the biblical account of our origins. Thus, biblical history—God’s eyewitness account of what He did when He created us and what sort of biology He put in motion—does not differ from biological observations. There is nothing “irrational” about recognizing that observable science is consistent with biblical history.20

Can Dawkins and Krauss Really “Rid This World of Religion”?

The interviewer concluded by asking the pair, “Is it your hope or expectation that you can, in your words, rid this world of religion?

“I’m not sure how soon,” Dawkins answered. “I think that religion is declining, that Christianity is declining throughout Christendom.”21 Looking to the future, he adds, “And I think that that’s going to continue. If we look at the broad sweep of history, it’s clear that the trend is going in the right direction. I’m not so optimistic that it will be in my lifetime, but it will happen.”22

And what do Dawkins and Krauss hope to accomplish by getting rid of Christianity? Why do they care what others believe? Why are they so eager to expedite God’s exit from human history? Dawkins summed up the proud position of humanism when he said that he wants to see us “intelligently design our society, our ethics, our morality—so that we live in the kind of society we want to live in rather than in the kind of society that was laid down in a book written in 800 BC.”23 Krauss added that accepting the ideas of “Iron Age peasants” is “demeaning.”24

Though Dawkins and Krauss disparage the ideas of biblical peasants, their notions of social planning really sound very much like the post-Flood population who built the Tower of Babel in rebellion against God’s command to replenish the earth. In their pride (Psalm 10:4; Proverbs 16:8), those people said, “Let us make a name for ourselves” (Genesis 11:4). Indeed, how arrogant does a person have to be to assume that everyone who disagrees with him is either ill-informed or irrational? Is it any wonder that God hates pride, for through humanistic pride people not only reject God’s ways but “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18) of His very existence?

Dawkins and Krauss seem to want to redesign the world and society for the rest of us according to their own vision, making certain that God is written out of the picture. Yet those of us who know and trust God and accept the Bible as His revealed Word believe wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ, our Creator and Savior, possesses all true wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 1:16–17; 3:2). And we not only accept the history in God’s Word but also God’s declaration that we are all sinners in need of the grace of Jesus Christ. By contrast, those who, like Dawkins and Krauss, refuse to even acknowledge the testimony of the “design” they themselves see in nature (Romans 1:18–22) and their own consciences (Romans 2:12–16), much less God’s Word, are—according to God—“fools” (Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

In answer to the interviewer’s final question about the prospects for the imminent demise of religion, Krauss said, “I would have thought that by now religion would be gone. I thought religion was on the way out [in the 1960s], so I was kind of surprised and disappointed in some ways by the resurgence of fundamentalism in my country [the United States].”25 Speaking of the future he expects, he adds, “But I do think that it’s obvious that access to information and knowledge is decreasing” the number of people who say they are religious worldwide and that “inevitably knowledge and wonder of the real universe will supplant” religion.26 Answers in Genesis exists to make knowledge available to help people make informed decisions about the claims of atheistic evolutionists so that they will see that they can trust God’s Word from the very first verse.

Both Krauss and Dawkins think it unreasonable that people feel “threatened” by their efforts to rid the world of religion.27 Dawkins said, “where religion is concerned if you speak clearly it sounds threatening” and “if you say something clearly and distinctly and truthfully there are people who will take that as threatening.” He said that religion is so entrenched that it “gets a free ride” and that “very mild criticism” and “questioning” shouldn’t be regarded as threatening.28

Conclusion: Man’s Word vs. God’s Word

Krauss and Dawkins repeatedly refer to the “evidence of reality” in this interview. Yet they, like other evolutionary scientists, fail to distinguish between testable scientific reality—experimental science—and the untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable assumptions on which the scientific claims of evolutionary origins science are based. What they claim as “reality” is interpreted through their own worldview, a worldview that is clearly hostile toward God.29 And while they oppose “all” religion, it is clear they particularly oppose Christianity and the Bible. They firmly believe that anyone who fails to accept their worldview is irrational. They admit that religion meets the needs of some people for “spirituality,” but their concept of spirituality is a purely emotional response.30

And lest this “response” be deemed defensive (a point made not only in this interview but also by a number of atheists who have recently written in to this ministry), let me hasten to point out that if “just asking a question” should not be seen as “threatening,” then neither should just answering one. If saying “something clearly and distinctly and truthfully” should not be seen as threatening when Dawkins speaks, then neither should the truth from God’s Word be taken that way. It should not be threatening when we question evolution, big bang, millions of years, humanism, or even Dawkins and Krauss themselves. In fact, they would welcome it in every forum, if they were consistent.

Krauss and Dawkins do have one thing in common with most biblical creationists—a sense of awe and wonder at what we can learn from experimental science about the world around us. Krauss and Dawkins appreciate the “poetry of science” but superimpose their own rhapsodic notions about the atoms in our bodies being derived from stardust billions of years old.31 Biblical creationists, however, examine the actual facts of science—the observable and repeatable ones, not evolutionary story telling and conjectures—in light of God’s revealed truth and see that there actually is no contradiction between the history revealed in the Bible and science (Romans 1:18–22).

Krauss and Dawkins hope their film will prompt Christians to ask questions and to critically examine their beliefs in light of science. At Answers in Genesis we encourage people—both believers and unbelievers—to ask questions and to critically examine Scriptural revelation and scientific facts. We provide help in finding answers to those questions. Sadly, one example Dawkins provided was a young-earth creationist who came to his lectures on evolution and was very impressed, having never heard the evolutionary point of view. We do not encourage ignorance about evolutionary positions but instead want to equip people with the information they need to discern the difference between observable experimental science and historical science, between that which can be tested and that which can only be imagined, between what can actually be seen in the world through science and the claims of evolutionists.32

We want to equip children, teens, and adults with the tools they need to help them trust God’s Word and see through false religions like atheism, so that they will then be able to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior and the Lord of their lives. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not encouraging people to have blind faith. On the contrary, we are providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. And we do so with confidence that the Bible has the answers to explain the world we live in—scientifically, morally, and theologically.

The Bible attests not only to the true history of our origins but also the truth about humanity’s rebellious and sinful nature.33 Dawkins and Krauss consider biblical truth restrictive and demeaning. The Bible does make it clear that all people are sinners who have rebelled against the omniscient, omnipotent, and holy God. Dawkins and Krauss personify this rebellious spirit in declaring their desire to redesign the world the way “we”—in other words, “they”—want it to be. But evil men and seducers will, according to Scripture, get worse and worse (2 Timothy 3:13), so much so that Jesus said “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). As Christians, meanwhile, we are commanded to respond to the “nonthreatening threats” volleyed at us by skeptics and by sincere questioners by providing answers (1 Peter 3:15, KJV; 2 Timothy 2:22–26), including the answer to people’s sin problem (Romans 3:23, 6:23)—salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. But the final end of humanity’s destiny is not the end prophesied by Dawkins and Krauss, for the same Jesus Christ that rose from the dead will indeed come again (Revelation 22:20). Dawkins and Krauss may be leading the charge to eradicate Christianity, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who will surely have the last word.

Thanks to Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., for his helpful and insightful additions in the footnotes.

For more information:

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. http://ww3.tvo.org/video/190768/rise-new-atheists Back
  2. Of course, Dawkins means all religions but his own. He is very religious being a secular humanist. He is a signer of the Humanist Manifesto III. Humanism comes in various flavors like “agnosticism,” “traditional atheism,” “new atheism,” and so on. When someone says he is “not religious” in this context, that is a fancy way of saying he adheres to the religion of humanism in one form or another. Dawkins’s religious viewpoint is “new atheism.” It is distinguished from traditional atheism in that it actively proselytizes for the atheistic point of view, whereas adherents of traditional atheism believe that nothing matters and so see no reason to proselytize. Back
  3. We have known about their strategic attacks for some time. They have tried to force the religion of humanism in the classroom and now elsewhere. In 1983, humanist John Dunphy also spoke of this strategy—to put their atheistic religion into schools—when he said: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.” John Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” quoted in John Dunphy, “The Book that Started It All,” Council for Secular Humanism, http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dunphy_21_4. Back
  4. Yet these atheists do not realize the silliness of their own views. Dawkins himself admits that it is possible that aliens designed and seeded life on earth—yes, really! Krauss and Dawkins both believe that all people ultimately came from a rock—clearly this is in violation of the Law of Biogenesis. Both believe that everything is material; therefore, from their view, logic, truth, and knowledge, which are non-material, cannot exist. By thus laying claim to logic, truth, and knowledge, they inadvertently borrow from a Christian worldview—how silly for their religion to borrow from its enemy! Dawkins argues there is no morality and then tries to say Christians are immoral. Both believe that nothing ultimately matters; yet they both seem to think it matters a great deal to force this belief on others. Neither Krauss or Dawkins seem to realize that in an atheistic worldview, the atheist is actually claiming to be “God” (because to know there is no God, one must be omnipresent and omniscient, which are attributes of God alone), which refutes their own atheism. This short list should suffice. Such silliness should be embarrassing to an atheist. Back
  5. Interestingly, Christians believe in asking questions and seeking answers to all sorts of tough questions—including the scientific and the theological. And Christians certainly recognize that the universe is a remarkable place, but we know it was created by God. So the opposition to Christianity on this ground is completely without warrant by their own criteria. Back
  6. Evolution (and millions of years, or geological evolution) is the real key. These are tenets of the Humanist Manifestos, so humanists do not want to give up this key aspect. They must fight for this in their religion. But underlying all of this is the idea that man is the ultimate authority, not God. Back
  7. “Oneness with the universe” is a tenant of Buddhism, which is strange considering they are arguing to oppose Buddhism along with all other religions. Back
  8. What they mean by “science” here is not the observable and repeatable science that makes discoveries about how things work and applies that knowledge, but instead a “science” that embraces naturalism and evolution as absolutely axiomatic. Therefore, what Dawkins and Krauss mean when they say science is not just how things work but their own naturalistic, unverifiable, dogmatically-held ideas about where everything came from. By science, they really mean their religion of humanism. Back
  9. If one believes there is something greater than oneself in atheism, then it means that he is not atheistic. Hence, this is self-refuting. Back
  10. If being insignificant is so great, then why waste time seeking popularity by speaking out against Christianity by making documentaries? Back
  11. This is oddly similar to what the religious atheist is doing, per the very context. Back
  12. This is a “No True Scotsman” fallacy, meaning that the arguer has defined the terms in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals. Back
  13. It is sad that they appeal to Darwin, a racist, who went so far as to say that the more evolved Caucasians would eventually exterminate everyone else (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man [New York: A.L. Burt, 1874, 2nd ed.], p. 178). Even James Watson, a codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, also has underlying racist attitudes. But note that they appeal to man as the ultimate authority. Back
  14. Which big bang model (open models, closed model) do they think is true and why are the others wrong? Back
  15. The atheists simply do not like the fact that Christians actually believe God when He speaks. They really want us to compromise God’s Word with theirs like Eve did in the garden and to deny God’s Word in Genesis in favor of their fallible sinful words. The issue is not mere distaste for creationists, but rather their distaste for God’s Word. Note this: the conflict is not between atheists and creationists; it is between atheists and God. Back
  16. Note what replaced God in their religion. It was time, chance, and death. Without these, evolution is meaningless. These are the “god” for an evolutionary worldview. Back
  17. Yet science comes out of a Christian worldview, where God upholds the universe in a particular fashion, and this all-knowing God has told us so (e.g., Genesis 8:22 and others). In the humanistic view, how can man know that the laws in the universe will be the same in the future? According to man, from the big bang to today, the laws have changed. How does one know they will not change tomorrow? If one says, “because they always have,” he is arbitrarily begging the question. Back
  18. Such methods are classic cases of begging the question; they are using long-age assumptions to prove long ages. We could just as easily do the same thing by using young-age assumptions to prove a young earth, but this simply shows the arbitrariness of their uniformitarian claims. Back
  19. The two proposed mechanisms of evolution are called: (1) natural selection, a creationist concept by the way, and (2) mutations. In both cases, they are losing information (i.e., it is going in the wrong direction for evolution). For example, natural selection filters out already existing information; mutations lose information quickly, or in many cases it remains nearly neutral. See Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? and Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?. Back
  20. Isn’t it fascinating that humanists who are materialistic by their very admission appeal to logic and claim we are irrational, when rational thought is only possible if nonmaterial things exist like concepts, truth, logic, and so on? Yet these atheists (materialists, humanists) must reject it because if they leave open an immaterial realm (i.e., a spiritual realm), then God could exist and they cannot be atheistic or humanistic (i.e., humans are the ultimate authority). Back
  21. Yet Christianity is still the fastest growing religion. Please see http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html; it is merely declining or stagnant in certain places, like Western Europe and the U.S. Back
  22. Did you catch that Dawkins just made a prophecy? He predicted that religion would cease. God disagrees with Him (Matthew 16:18; Daniel 2:44). Back
  23. Satan, in the Bible, sinned with his pride of wanting to ascend to God’s position (Isaiah 14:14). It appears clear that Dawkins wants to replace God, too, as the “intelligent designer” no less, albeit of society rather than the universe. (We suppose even Dawkins knows he has some limitations!) Interestingly, Dawkins does seem to believe in a form of intelligent design because he has said he considers it a possibility that aliens designed life here (per his comments in the documentary Expelled with Ben Stein, not in this interview). Furthermore, it is unclear what book Dawkins is talking about, though he is surely alluding to the Bible with a prejudicial conjecture about the timing. The Bible was written over the course of about 1450 B.C. to about A.D. 68–95 (Christians do debate this). Take note of the irony here though; Dawkins wants people to follow what he says in his books, but not follow God’s book! Again, he is trying to replace God (2 Corinthians 2:11), and in his own mind, he already has. Back
  24. Note the strawman fallacies these atheists are committing. They are trying to make Christianity look silly, but because they cannot even get basic facts correct, they look silly by default. Back
  25. This is reminiscent of atheist Friedrich Nietzsche who declared “God is dead” several times in the 1800s. It is sad that atheists like Krauss know so little about God’s Word that they fail to realize a dominating principle: the power of God in the Resurrection. When the Jews had Christ crucified, even Christ’s disciples thought the Son of God was dead. But God is known for His Resurrection. Though Nietzsche is dead, God continues to live and gives to all life and breath. And Christianity continues to grow by the power of the Holy Spirit. Back
  26. Note here that Krauss has now prophesied the same sort of thing as Dawkins. He is predicting that universe worship, like his atheistic view, will come to destroy religion. But this would naturally fail, as atheism and universe worship are a form of religion, making Krauss’s prediction inherently contradictory. Back
  27. Actually, Christians should find it a blessing. Jesus said in Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.Back
  28. Again, Christians do not fear questioning, nor do we get a free ride or mild criticism. Christians in various parts of the world are murdered for their beliefs, attacked and beaten for their beliefs, abused for their beliefs, and lied about because of their beliefs. If one is not a Christian, like Dawkins, why assume such people actually adhere to the Ten Commandments, which say not to lie? Dawkins claimed that there is no morality in his debate with Lanier. So why trust him to tell the truth? With this in mind, notice Dawkins’s deception here. He wants the freedom to question, but he does not want us to respond. Nor does he want Christians to question things like evolution or the big bang—especially in classrooms! If he did welcome responses, he would be happy for Christians to question evolution, the big bang, naturalism, and so on, and to respond to his false claims about Christianity in a proper forum, like the classroom, which is a place for learning. But Dawkins is adamant that Christians should have no say, no response, and no questioning of the evolutionary view in the state schools. Dawkins wants only his religion taught in schools and only his religion is permitted to question others. This is a double standard. Back
  29. Remember, they assume long ages to prove long ages—an arbitrary begging the question fallacy. Back
  30. They are trying to demote all religions to being materialistic (underlings to their religion). This is why they say spiritual is not immaterial, but merely emotion (e.g., chemical reaction in the brain). They are trying to change the definition of spirit and spiritual. They want to make God (who is spirit, John 4:24) into part of the universe or place Him in a position that is lower than the universe. Hence, the universe can be the unofficial “god” to the atheist, next to man, of course. Back
  31. When Krauss attacks the Bible with his famous mantra, “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you can be here today,” he is promoting a mere fairy tale and stories to satisfy a meaningless atheistic worldview. Back
  32. This is why we teach people about each evolutionary view and its problems. In brief, there are five main views: (1) The Epicurean evolutionary view, which has its roots in Greek mythology. This is where evolution came from. The newer forms we have today are just rehashes of this mythology that Paul refuted in Acts 17; (2) Lamarckian evolution, which taught that animals can acquire new traits through interactions with their environments, and then pass them on to the next generation; (3) Traditional Darwinism, where natural selection and time are the primary factors for change; (4) Neo-Darwinism, where natural selection and time are combined with mutations as the primary factors for evolution; and (5) Punctuated Equilibrium, which tries to explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms. This view assumes that evolution occurred in bursts and is not recorded in the fossil layers; it still relies on natural selection, mutations, and time. For more, see Roger Patterson and Dr. Terry Mortenson, “Do Evolutionists Believe Darwin’s Ideas about Evolution?” New Answers Book 3, Ken Ham, gen. ed. (Green Forest, AR: 2010), p. 271–282. Back
  33. It is important to note that in the beginning, God called His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). It is because of man’s sin that death, suffering, and disease came into the creation. (See The Fall and the Problem of Millions of Years of Natural Evil.) God did not make the world like it is today (full of suffering) but subjected it to this due to man’s sin. We have essentially been given a taste of what life is like without God. But Christ did not leave us to perish; instead, he took the punishment that we deserve on the Cross, once for all. Christ, the God-man, took the infinite punishment that is demanded by the very nature of God, who is infinite. God then offers the free gift of salvation, and promises a new heavens and new Earth that will not be subjected to death, suffering, and decay. See What Does It Mean to Be “Saved”?. Back