Richard Dawkins, world-renowned atheist, appeared previously on The O’Reilly Factor when his book, The God Delusion, was popular. Their conversation on O’Reilly’s program was reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives on May 13, 2007. Now Dawkins has a new book that attempts to provide evidence for evolution, and he was on the Factor on Friday, October 9, 2009. The host began by playing a clip of part of the conversation from Dawkins’ former visit.
O’Reilly: Jesus was a real guy. I could see Him. You know, I know what He did, and so I’m not positive that Jesus is God, but I’m throwin’ in with Jesus rather than throwin’ in with you guys because you guys can’t tell me how it all got here. You guys don’t know.
Dawkins: We’re working on it.
O’Reilly: When you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.
O’Reilly began this new conversation between the two of them by advocating an untenable position: “I believe in creative design. I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power….” What?
Theistic Evolution
Why would anyone claim to believe in both creative design and evolution (at least, macro-evolution)? This claim sounds like someone trying to appease both sides of the debate. What is even more bizarre is that later in the interview Dawkins said: “You may think that God oversees evolution, and that’s a point of view you could probably defend….” Do our ears deceive us? Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and author of books that are anti-God and pro-evolution, is claiming that the position of theistic evolution is defensible? How wishy-washy is that? Of course, he does not believe theistic evolution for a second, but for him to assert that the position could be defended is incredible!
The position cannot be defended for the following reasons. First of all, it is false. Second, it is not logical. The proof of these two statements follows. Does the creation show design? Yes. There is no other way to say the following (nor does there need to be): If the creation shows design, then there must be a designer! If not, why not. Disorder and disarray do not produce design. Chaos does not generate a genesis. Has anyone ever left a messy living room with pizza boxes, soda cans, newspapers, and snacks strewn all over and entered the room the day after the Superbowl to find everything put into its proper place? The boxes and cans have somehow gravitated to trash cans; the popcorn bowls have washed themselves and returned to the cupboard on their own—without even having to be told to do so.
Has anyone ever seen a preacher’s cluttered office (no names, please) restore itself to proper order? Overnight, the books replaced themselves on the shelves, and all the papers were put in the appropriate folders and filed. If such simple disarray cannot order itself to a previous pattern of design, how much less likely is it that the office would deign itself in the first place? And yet evolutionists claim that the order in the universe and the precise conditions for life to exist on earth came from a huge explosion? That scenario is about like engineers blowing up part of a mountain only to find when the dust cleared, there was a paved road already laid down from the debris. Order is not so magically established.
So, O’Reilly is right to note that a design gave us the order we now perceive and enjoy. BUT, a design necessitates a designer. Now who might that be? The God of the Bible claims to be that Person in the very first line of His Book: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Are there claims for other deities? There are, but mythological explanations are not rational.
The Bible describes God creating the universe by the power of His Word: “For He spoke and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9). The world was not hatched from a giant, flying egg (which came from what, a giant, flying chicken?) or anything so equally absurd. Neither did life come from matter which was not living—something which is not only absurd but unscientific (since it has never been observed in any experiment—even with all of our technology).
Therefore, if the Bible claims to be from the One who created everything (which it does), and that explanation fits all the known evidence and contradicts neither established facts nor science (which it does not), then mankind has a decision to make. Either the Bible is the Word of God (as it claims), and should therefore be taken seriously and heeded, or it is not, in which case it is filled with lies throughout and should be discarded. No middle ground exists. To claim that the Bible is not really from God, but it contains some marvelous truths is to place its acceptance on a purely subjective basis. Who is the one who decides which parts are true and which are false? Such an outlook transports us back to chaos.
If the Bible reveals the truth about God (and it does, since He is the author), then we have an account of the creation from One who was there. Scientists attempt to learn all that they can about this universe, including its origin, and they should because we are all curious about the details. But regardless of the way God did it, the fact is He did it. Furthermore, He did provide some details of the way that He went about it, which are recorded in Genesis 1, which is not an allegory nor full of symbols, as the book of Revelation is. It is a straight-forward, no-spin, matter-of-fact description of what occurred. He created everything fully grown (capable of reproducing) and did not use an evolutionary process over millions of years.
The Bible plainly sets forth the truth, eliminating the need for the process of evolution. Besides, if God is the all-powerful being that He claims, why would He use a process that He neglected to tell us about, which contradicts the Genesis account—and which accomplishes what He could have done instantaneously in the first place? In other words, the position O’Reilly took means that the following occurred: God created some primordial muck and over billions of years He supervised the entire project until, at long last, man evolved. Despite this actual occurrence, however, when He decided to write it all down, He said that He did it all in six literal days and even based the Sabbath day observance on this fabrication. Adam and Eve are even treated as the first couple all throughout the Bible.
If God is powerful enough to create and oversee the development of all things over billions of years, He is powerful enough to create the world in six days just the way He wanted it in the first place. Evolution does not account for sin, the conscience, or the soul. Certainly, it requires no salvation. Only the Bible explains the origin of those concepts.
The Human Condition
Dawkins’ reply to O’Reilly’s opening statement was that it is not logical to throw in with Jesus just because science does not have all the answers. He said that at least science is working on them. Okay, it is the job of the unbiased scientist to discover the truths and facts that are available. Evolution, however, is scientific theory, and creationism fits the facts even better. The real clash is not the evidence but the way the evidence is interpreted. Evolutionary atheism is just as much of a religion as the Bible is. O’Reilly replied:
Here’s the problem that I have with throwing my lot in with science: Science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way, and Jesus did. And if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, we’d almost be an idyllic civilization. Am I 100% certain that Jesus is God? No, but I choose to believe that, because the man was so extraordinary in what He did in 33 years on earth [that what He did, GWS] still resonates to this day.
O’Reilly is right in the first part of his comments. Jesus and Christianity do advance the human condition because they teach that God had requirements of us as it pertains to the home and society (as well as the church). If people did not act selfishly but truly loved one another, we would need neither police nor prisons. Evolution, however, does not advance humanity at all. If it were true that man descended through animals, then we cannot be certain that we possess a soul that lives on after death. No Day of Judgment is suggested by the theory of evolution, and if man is a pure product of nature, morality is just a figment of his imagination. Objective standards cannot exist in such an environment. Death means extinction; so this life is the only time that we ever have a chance to attain pleasure and get what we want. Obviously, civil law stands no chance of being obeyed if Divine law does not exist.
However, a viewer could understand why Dawkins takes O’Reilly to task. He is not 100% sure that Jesus is God? How does one make a confession of faith with this attitude? “I believe with 75% of my being that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Is that what Timothy confessed in the presence of many witnesses (1 Tim 6: 12)? Either the evidence concerning Jesus is conclusive, or it is not. Either faith is based on evidence, or it is not. The evidence remains available in the Word.
Dawkins answers: “Why would you muddle up the question of giving you a moral compass for life, which is important, with the other question of explaining the nature of the world and life and the universe? That’s what science is about.” O’Reilly answered, “I understand that, and I don’t think my belief system contradicts science….” A better way of making this point is: “The Bible does not contradict genuine science.” But he might have asked, “If evolution is true, where does the idea of a moral compass come from? Why is it important to have one? And who determines what the moral compass is?” These would be interesting questions for the evolutionary atheist to answer.
Looking Down on Believers
Moving on to another topic, O’Reilly said that it seemed to him that people like Dawkins seemed “to look down on believers.” Dawkins did not deny the notion, but he tried to blame the arrogance of evolutionists on believers. He avowed there was a problem when theists
Try to say that, because you believe what you do, because of a holy book, and because of the way you’ve been brought up, therefore, that entitles you to go into science classes and tell teachers what they can and cannot teach.
Whoa! Who is it that tells teachers what to teach? Evolutionists will not allow for any other explanation than theirs although the evidence strongly supports the creation model. Many who are Christians today did not “inherit” the belief; they became persuaded because of the evidence. Dawkins is full of assumptions. O’Reilly shot back:
It’s not fair to leave it out of the science class if the science class is incomplete. You, by your own admission, say, “We don’t know how it all began.” So if the science class is gonna say, Evolution only, but I really don’t know how it all got started,” that gap has got to be explored.
Dawkins responded by saying that it illogical to say that, because science cannot fill a particular gap, people must turn to Christianity. O’Reilly interrupted, “You don’t have to turn anywhere; just present it.” Dawkins continued: “Just because science has a gap in its knowledge, that does not entitle you to turn to any other particular alternative. Pick on a better science.”
This statement is somewhat disingenuous. Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens stated what most atheists and Christians agree upon: Only two major explanations for the origin of the universe exist—creation or evolution. It is not science that has a gap; science has no vested interest in the outcome. It can only experiment and test a hypothesis. Evolution contains the gaps, and Dawkins attempts to prejudice the audience in his favor by always using the word science when he means evolution—as though the two were the same.
O’Reilly was having none of Dawkins’ assertions. He answered, “No, that’s Fascism. For you to say that you can’t mention… [There is always a few seconds of delay between the interviewer and the guest when the guest in not in the studio. Dawkins reacted to O’Reilly’s charge, but it took him until the word mention to do so. Suddenly, in the middle of O’Reilly’s sentence came an incredulous response: “Fascism?!” O’Reilly affirmed that he had heard correctly and then continued with his point by starting over again.]
“You can’t mention brilliant men…who do believe in a higher power…. You insist that you can’t even mention it. That’s Fascism, sir.” Dawkins primarily repeated that, “if a particular science theory doesn’t work, do some better science.” How true! The theory of evolution does not work; it falls flat on many levels and cannot explain gaps all over the place. So, why not allow the theory of intelligent design or the position that is set forth in the Bible to be taught? O’Reilly opined that, since the vast majority of people believe in the Bible, that it should be presented.
Superstition?
The closing comment on Round II of this subject was given to Dawkins, who said:
Science is unique in that it does base itself upon evidence rather than upon superstition, upon authority, upon holy books, or upon revelation.
If science were content to base itself on evidence, Christians would have no problem with it, since we too are interested in the truth. Some of the great scientists in the past believed in both science AND the Scriptures, and they found them to be compatible—not at odds with one another. The theory of evolution, however, is just that—a theory that has never been verified. Could continuing in the position of Darwin, although most of what he speculated upon as to the way evolution works has now been debunked, possibly constitute “authority”? Is The Origin of Species a holy book?
The Bible is not, as inferred, a product of superstition. It bears no resemblance to the tales of mythology. It deals with real peoples living in real places in real time. It dwells greatly on causality rather than happenstance. It actually avoids the superstitions of the times in which it was written and instead contains wisdom and practical advice that people to this day cannot fairly disagree with.
The Bible is a holy book and a Divine revelation; the only way we can learn certain portions of the truth is through the Supernatural One who created all things; we will never arrive at everything we need to know empirically. It is true, also, that the Word of God is authoritative, but if it is what it claims to be, how could it not be? Could God give any commands unless He had the authority to back them up? Who else has the knowledge and is capable of communicating the truth?
“In the beginning, God….” This is not guesswork or superstition. The natural world proclaims intelligent design, which necessitates a designer. From the Supernatural world comes the proclamation of truth. Both proclaim the existence of God. it is not a matter of superstition but of logic and evidence (see Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-20). The reason that people believe the Bible is that it is harmonious with what is revealed through nature and it is consistent with life’s truths and harmonious within itself. Were it simply a compilation of myths and superstitions, it would be as disregarded as Ovid’s The Metamorphoses. It also answers life’s questions.