May 192007

Isn’t it interesting that 19th century (the great “death of God” era) Darwinian “science” made it possible for Dawkins to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but that late 20th century science has made faith and theism more rational and reasonable than ever before in human history (in my opinion)? It’s an interesting turn of events. The “science” in which Dawkins put his atheistic faith turned out to be bogus.

It turns out that the universe did not always exist, and that it began in a flash of light (high-frequency gamma rays, but that’s electromagnetic radiation, just like light, only much more highly energetic). And who would have expected in Darwin’s time that life was not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability, but on information, information processing, and nano-technology super-machines?

Paul had it all figured out 2,000 years ago when he pointed out in the book of Romans that we are without excuse to disbelieve, because God has made Himself evident in things that are made (i.e., designed), and these things are all around us, especially us, who are fearfully and wonderfully made.

 Posted by at 6:28 pm
Apr 132007

Dear Teleological Folks,

I posted the following over at but it is undoubtedly long lost in the comments. I thought it might be of interest here. As some of you may know, I used to be a militant, Dawkins-style atheist. All that changed in 1994 after I bought my five-year-old daughter a cartoon video entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Everything went downhill from there as I apostatized from my former religion of atheism. 🙂 (Yes, it is a religion!)


The gap between humans and all other forms of life on the planet — in so many categories that one would have to write many books on the subject — is so profound that it represents the ultimate discontinuity in nature, which is characterized not by seamlessness, but by discontinuities. This is the antithesis of Darwinian philosophy.

As a former atheist, I would suggest that the great divide is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between materialists and those who recognize the uniqueness of humankind (this includes our great capacity for good, and our great capacity for evil). It is only by recognizing our divine origin — which seems increasingly difficult to deny, in my view — that we have any hope of cultivating the good and suppressing the evil. But this requires brutal self-honesty, which is antithetical to the fallen part of our nature referenced above.

These are ultimate issues, and are ultimately the only ones that really matter, because they affect and reflect upon all areas of our lives, which is why the (ID/Darwinism) debate is so heated.

 Posted by at 6:50 pm
Feb 142007

In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter: Continue reading »

Feb 052007

As if we needed any more evidence of just how disingenuous Richard Dawkins is, check out this little tidbit I got from a friend of mine.

Richard Dawkins: 4 December 2006

Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions

Question: Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail

RD: The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don’t enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: “That was easy to sum up – Lions 10, Christians nil.” Continue reading »

Dec 152006

I am going to offend a few people who read this blog. My intention really is not to offend anyone. I am not being deliberately provocative. I am simply worried. I am going to worrying out loud. I am going to deal with belief, specifically the problem of religious belief. Because I happen to think how we deal with religious belief, or fail to criticize the belief of other human beings at this moment has more to do with the maintenance of civilization than anything else that is in our powers to influence. Our world has been Balkanized by incompatible religious dogmas. We have Atheists against Christians against Jews. The books themselves make incompatible claims. We have this founding notion that Darwin wrote one of our texts. Unfortunately we have many such books on hand. I see no reason to survive our religious differences indefinitely. The fact that a few short years from now, you will be able to sit in a cave in Afghanistan and with your thousand-dollar laptop, you will essentially have a supercomputer that can kick off its genetic algorithms, its malicious code, to the rest of society. You would be able to buy this malicious code from some atheist hackers here in the U.S. This alone makes this Balkanization of our world, the separate moral identities, the fact we are not identified just merely as human beings but we are Atheist and Muslims. It makes it untenable. Continue reading »