Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist and author of numerous best-selling books, decided to abandon the enlightenment of adults, and with his new book “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True” he focuses on 5-year-olds, claiming that they have to learn the theory of evolution along with their first letters.
Richard Dawkins is no longer satisfied with his books that challenge the existence of God and which are sold in millions of copies, or with the fact that “liberal” media is placing him among the stars and call him “the most famous atheist in the world”. He is also no longer interested in suing Pope Benedict XVI for "crimes against humanity", because of alleged covering up of sexual abuses in the Catholic Church. Dawkins now has a new target audience, which he wants win and teach them how religion is bad – the kids, preschool kids.
Richard Dawkins, great intellectual, evolutionary biologist, writer and professor at Oxford University, has recently published his latest book “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True”, aimed primarily at preschool children. In just as short period, this book raised more dust – and more calls for a ban – than his best-sellers like “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design” (in which he challenged the theory that any invention must have its inventor, and which served to believers as a great analogy and key evidence for the existence of the Almighty), or The God Delusion (in which he brings many proofs that there is no God that supposedly governs our lives).
Dawkins says that he was annoyed because the opponents Darwin's theory of evolution are occupying too much space in the media, especially in the United States, where nominated Republican candidates for the next presidential elections are regularly competing who will more effectively end successfully challenge the thesis that man has evolved from apes.
Therefore, this scientist concluded that children have to get lessons regarding basic principles of evolution already during kindergarten. And especially in the first grade.
“No educated person believes the Adam and Eve myth nowadays, but it is surprising how many parents think that it is somehow fun to pass on this falsehood (and others in the same vein) to their children. Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age. But I would want to argue that the truth of evolution is more interesting and more poetic — even more fun — than this myth, or any of the hundreds of creation myths from around the world. And — perhaps surprisingly — evolution could be taught in such a way as to make it easier to understand than a myth. This is because myths leave the child’s questions unanswered, or they raise more questions than they appear to answer.” – said Dawkins
The book begins with a dedication to Dawkins’ father, John Dawkins, who died last year at the age of 95.
„I learned from my father that we need continual reconsideration, skepticism, search for evidence and understanding in order to comprehend what evidence is” – says Dawkins.
Dawkins has actually inherited faith from his father. Although he claims that he had already, at the age of nine, started questioning the existence of God, he says that he was persuaded into it, and that is why he, at that age, wholeheartedly accepted Christianity. However, in his teenage years he concluded that the theory of evolution is a much better explanation for the complexity of life and he ceased to believe in God.
From there, through education at Oxford and the first professorial job at Berkeley, to what his opponents call "militant atheism", it didn’t take long.
“Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ``faith.''” – Dawkins wrote in his famous essay “Viruses of the Mind”.
He is convinced that if there was no organized religion, the terrorist attacks from 11 September 2001 wouldn’t occurred. The critics say that when he publicly said that, he became dangerous opponent of religion. And not only Christian, but all the others.
“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. – says Dawkins. “Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labeled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!”
His works are controversial – and the word “controversial” is even an understatement. A large number of Christians - especially educated ones – found it necessary to slap him in his face regarding how wrong he is. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) claims that Dawkins has no knowledge of Christian theology, and therefore, he can’t possibly intelligently reflect upon religion and faith.
Dawkins immediately fired back:
“Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
In 2007, Dawkins had, similarly to the associations of homosexuals who organize parades and insist that people should "get out of the closet" and admit they are gay, founded the "Out Campaign" to encourage as many people around the world as possible to publicly say that they are atheists. According to his opinion, this may well change the mindset of most people – and further, the mindset of Richard’s atheists – who will once again think about their faith.
The biggest "excursion to the mainstream," other than his written word, Dawkins had in 2008. Then, he was one of the first people who supported the first atheist initiative in UK, called the “Atheist Bus Campaign”.
Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine and her colleagues from the "British Humanist Association" decided to raise money in order to place atheist adverts on buses in the London area.
On January 2009, across Britain appeared buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
On one occasion he agreed to answer questions from readers of reputable newspaper "Independent". On that occasion, he spoke for the first time about children’s education from the perspective of religion.
Do you consider parents forcing children to accept their religion a form of child abuse?- asked reader James Macdonald.
Dawkins answered:
“Yes. What would you think of parents who forced their children to accept their politics, or their taste in architecture? Have you ever heard anyone speak of a "Leninist child" or a "Postmodernist child"? Of course not. Why, then, do we all go along with "Christian child" and "Muslim child"? Such labeling of children with their parents' religion is child abuse.”
Dawkins has a solution and for adults:
“People who would laugh at the idea that a pumpkin could turn into a coach, and who know perfectly well that silk handkerchiefs don’t really turn into rabbits, are quite happy to believe that a prophet turned water into wine or, as devotees of another religion would have it, flew to heaven on a winged horse.”
Besides God and gods, Dawkins is opposed to all those who do not want to think about family planning and control of world’s population. In his book “The Selfish Gene”, he gives the example of Latin America, where the population doubles every few decades. He didn’t of course miss the chance to mention Catholics because their church clearly opposes contraception.
“... leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods ... express a preference for "natural" methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.”
Richard Dawkins is no longer satisfied with his books that challenge the existence of God and which are sold in millions of copies, or with the fact that “liberal” media is placing him among the stars and call him “the most famous atheist in the world”. He is also no longer interested in suing Pope Benedict XVI for "crimes against humanity", because of alleged covering up of sexual abuses in the Catholic Church. Dawkins now has a new target audience, which he wants win and teach them how religion is bad – the kids, preschool kids.
Richard Dawkins, great intellectual, evolutionary biologist, writer and professor at Oxford University, has recently published his latest book “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True”, aimed primarily at preschool children. In just as short period, this book raised more dust – and more calls for a ban – than his best-sellers like “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design” (in which he challenged the theory that any invention must have its inventor, and which served to believers as a great analogy and key evidence for the existence of the Almighty), or The God Delusion (in which he brings many proofs that there is no God that supposedly governs our lives).
Dawkins says that he was annoyed because the opponents Darwin's theory of evolution are occupying too much space in the media, especially in the United States, where nominated Republican candidates for the next presidential elections are regularly competing who will more effectively end successfully challenge the thesis that man has evolved from apes.
Therefore, this scientist concluded that children have to get lessons regarding basic principles of evolution already during kindergarten. And especially in the first grade.
“No educated person believes the Adam and Eve myth nowadays, but it is surprising how many parents think that it is somehow fun to pass on this falsehood (and others in the same vein) to their children. Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age. But I would want to argue that the truth of evolution is more interesting and more poetic — even more fun — than this myth, or any of the hundreds of creation myths from around the world. And — perhaps surprisingly — evolution could be taught in such a way as to make it easier to understand than a myth. This is because myths leave the child’s questions unanswered, or they raise more questions than they appear to answer.” – said Dawkins
The book begins with a dedication to Dawkins’ father, John Dawkins, who died last year at the age of 95.
„I learned from my father that we need continual reconsideration, skepticism, search for evidence and understanding in order to comprehend what evidence is” – says Dawkins.
Dawkins has actually inherited faith from his father. Although he claims that he had already, at the age of nine, started questioning the existence of God, he says that he was persuaded into it, and that is why he, at that age, wholeheartedly accepted Christianity. However, in his teenage years he concluded that the theory of evolution is a much better explanation for the complexity of life and he ceased to believe in God.
From there, through education at Oxford and the first professorial job at Berkeley, to what his opponents call "militant atheism", it didn’t take long.
“Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ``faith.''” – Dawkins wrote in his famous essay “Viruses of the Mind”.
He is convinced that if there was no organized religion, the terrorist attacks from 11 September 2001 wouldn’t occurred. The critics say that when he publicly said that, he became dangerous opponent of religion. And not only Christian, but all the others.
“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. – says Dawkins. “Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labeled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!”
His works are controversial – and the word “controversial” is even an understatement. A large number of Christians - especially educated ones – found it necessary to slap him in his face regarding how wrong he is. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) claims that Dawkins has no knowledge of Christian theology, and therefore, he can’t possibly intelligently reflect upon religion and faith.
Dawkins immediately fired back:
“Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
In 2007, Dawkins had, similarly to the associations of homosexuals who organize parades and insist that people should "get out of the closet" and admit they are gay, founded the "Out Campaign" to encourage as many people around the world as possible to publicly say that they are atheists. According to his opinion, this may well change the mindset of most people – and further, the mindset of Richard’s atheists – who will once again think about their faith.
The biggest "excursion to the mainstream," other than his written word, Dawkins had in 2008. Then, he was one of the first people who supported the first atheist initiative in UK, called the “Atheist Bus Campaign”.
Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine and her colleagues from the "British Humanist Association" decided to raise money in order to place atheist adverts on buses in the London area.
On January 2009, across Britain appeared buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
On one occasion he agreed to answer questions from readers of reputable newspaper "Independent". On that occasion, he spoke for the first time about children’s education from the perspective of religion.
Do you consider parents forcing children to accept their religion a form of child abuse?- asked reader James Macdonald.
Dawkins answered:
“Yes. What would you think of parents who forced their children to accept their politics, or their taste in architecture? Have you ever heard anyone speak of a "Leninist child" or a "Postmodernist child"? Of course not. Why, then, do we all go along with "Christian child" and "Muslim child"? Such labeling of children with their parents' religion is child abuse.”
Dawkins has a solution and for adults:
“People who would laugh at the idea that a pumpkin could turn into a coach, and who know perfectly well that silk handkerchiefs don’t really turn into rabbits, are quite happy to believe that a prophet turned water into wine or, as devotees of another religion would have it, flew to heaven on a winged horse.”
“Without contraception, we will starve”
Besides God and gods, Dawkins is opposed to all those who do not want to think about family planning and control of world’s population. In his book “The Selfish Gene”, he gives the example of Latin America, where the population doubles every few decades. He didn’t of course miss the chance to mention Catholics because their church clearly opposes contraception.
“... leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods ... express a preference for "natural" methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.”
7 comments: on "Mr. Dawkins, why was Darwin right? – Richard Dawkins"
Did Pope Benedict XVI provide any view of his support of evolutionary theory?
The following is the extract of the speech from Pope Benedict XVI when he had his dialogue with Fr Alberto at the church of St Justin Martyr on 24th July 2007:
I think you have just given us a precise description of a life in which God does not figure. At first sight, it seems as if we do not need God or indeed, that without God we would be freer and the world would be grander. But after a certain time, we see in our young people what happens when God disappears. As Nietzsche said: "The great light has been extinguished, the sun has been put out". Life is then a chance event. It becomes a thing that I must seek to do the best I can with and use life as though it were a thing that serves my own immediate, tangible and achievable happiness. But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being. Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF EVOLUTION, and THOSE WHO INSTEAD SUPPORT EVOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE GOD. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ANSWER EVERY QUERY, especially the great philosophical question: WHERE DOES EVERYTHING COME FROM? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ALL OF REALITY. THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life. This seems to me to be the first point: to discover that my being is truly reasonable, it was thought of, it has meaning. And my important mission is to discover this meaning, to live it and thereby contribute a new element to the great cosmic harmony conceived of by the Creator. If this is true, then difficulties also become moments of growth, of the process and progress of my very being, which has meaning from conception until the very last moment of life. We can get to know this reality of meaning that precedes all of us, we can also rediscover the meaning of pain and suffering; there is of course one form of suffering that we must avoid and must distance from the world: all the pointless suffering caused by dictatorships and erroneous systems, by hatred and by violence. However, in suffering there is also a profound meaning, and only if we can give meaning to pain and suffering can our life mature. I would say, above all, that there can be no love without suffering, because love always implies renouncement of myself, letting myself go and accepting the other in his otherness; it implies a gift of myself and therefore, emerging from myself. All this is pain and suffering, but precisely in this suffering caused by the losing of myself for the sake of the other, for the loved one and hence, for God, ...
Comments upon the speech of Pope Benedict XVI as listed above and observe carefully those words that are placed in capital letters:
Despite Pope Benedict XVI did mention above that there are too many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality, he did not state clearly of his stand towards evolutionary theory since nothing is mentioned whether he had found favourably towards this theory.
As the phrase, those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that those people that uphold the truth that God should be the Creator of this world could not be able to identify whether there could be any link between the doctrine of evolution and Creator. This is by virtue of those people that support creationism would perceive that God was the One that directly created everything instead of being treated as everything would be the work of evolution and that He just stood aside just to assist without directly creating it.
As the phrase, those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God, is mentioned above, it implies that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to exclude God in their process of formation of everything. This is certainly true in the sense that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to support that God has to be excluded to be direct creation of this world since their belief is based on the assumption that He only stood aside and to assist in the formation of the world without directly creating it. If God would turn up not to be directly creating everything, how could he then call Him to be the Creator as mentioned in his speech above? As Benedict XVI called God to be the Creator, He should have supported that God was the One that had created everything directly.
Despite Pope Benedict XIV mentioned that there are many scientific proofs for evolution, he did not mention that all these evidences could be useful to prove the creation of this world. As the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that he did not support evolutionary theory could be a useful source to answer every query that would bring towards it. As the phrase, where does everything come from?, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, it implies that the doctrine of evolution could not provide a suitable reason how everything would come about, such as, Was God the One that directly created this world? How would God create this world? As the phrase, they are not enough to explain all of reality they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above, it gives an absolute conclusion that the doctrine of evolution should not be treated as reliable and sufficient source to prove how everything would come about. As the phrase, they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above pertaining to the doctrine of evolution, it implies that Paul Benedict XIV did not intend Christians to treat evolutionary theory to be useful source to tackle answer as where everything comes about or how everything could be formed in the beginning.
Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XIV did not mention that evolutionary theory could be useful to support how everything could be formed in the beginning, such as, How could human beings be formed? Was God directly created them? This is by virtue of evolutionary theory could not provide sufficient source to prove it.
Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?
The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:
The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.
Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.
The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope John Paul II:
‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible—incommunicabilis.
2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This "maintenance" is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.
As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.
As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.
The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.
Pope John Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:
‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’
The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
‘According to the "canons" added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD"OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS" (DS 3021).
2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.
As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.
Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.
If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?
It could be that:
When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.
Or
He could have made a mistake in his statement.
Or
He spoke it ignorantly.
The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:
The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.
As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:
4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
- 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
- 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
- 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
- Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
escapes Earth's gravity.
- 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
- 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
- Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly
carbon dioxide, water vapor,
methane, and ammonia.
- Formation of carbonate minerals starts
reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.
My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.
As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.
Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.
The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.
Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.
What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.
Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.
The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.
When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.
From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.
Is God omnipotent?
Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Post a Comment