Richard Dawkins is an outspoken biologist who acts as a sort of "preacher" for atheism. In his book "The God Delusion" he draws out a long argument against religion (specifically Christianity and Islam), and in favor of beliefs based purely in the realm of science.
The book was, undoubtedly, polemical. Any Christian or person who had a belief in God was considered a moron. He considered theologians to be irrational, and their "field of study" should be categorized with ancient mythological studies. The role of the Church, in Dawkins' view, is to manipulate the political system in their favor, oppress women and homosexuals, and to incite war in the name of Christ (all of which are valid and necessary critiques).
It seems that in his upcoming book, he is less concerned with Christianity and Christians as he is with the belief in evolution. He has turned from attacking the belief in God towards defending the theory of evolution. It seems that he found the task of "converting" people away from atheism too daunting, and instead is trying to find a middle ground. It's almost as if he is saying, "Look I know now that I can't get you to stop believing in God, but will you at least believe THIS?!" Which is an easier compromise. Anyways, I'm posting an article he wrote (which I guess is an excerpt from his forthcoming book) here.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece
How important is it to you that the creation happened in 7 days?
What do you think of Richard Dawkins and his approach to Christians, and Christianity as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The evidence towards an old earth is insurmountable. Look at the facts:
The speed of light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum (about 300,000,000 meters per second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Speed_of_light), and stars have been proven to be billion of light years distant (using the law of sines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_sines, a basic math concept from high school level trigonometry). This means that if the earth were only 6000 years old then only a few stars would be visible by the naked eye or by telescope. Some of the lights that shine upon you every night left in some cases billions of years ago.
The same concept that runs nuclear reactors across the world and also is fundamental in some of our most destructive weapons, nuclear decay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay, can also be used to predict with a high degree of accuracy the age of certain objects, such as organic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating) and rocks with radioactive isotopes, such as granite. It's hard to believe that your house is powered by a nuclear reactor and not believe in radioactive dating.
These are only a couple facts known that support an old universe. Right now there is almost no evidence supporting a 6000 year old universe (or earth for that matter), and any theory that does propose a young earth is very shaky and relies on some very complex and very theoretic physics (http://creationwiki.org/Young_universe_evidence).
The belief that the universe is only 6000 years old is an archaic belief that will eventually be left behind along with other beliefs, like the earth-centered universe and magnetism being the result of witchcraft. The reluctance for religions to look at facts objectively is typical and ignorant, and cannot withstand the massive amounts of evidence being collected every day. It took over two hundred years for the Catholic church to admit that the earth is not the center of the universe (a theory only supported by a couple of passages from the bible), and it may take just as much time to admit that the earth is not 6000 years old, but the time will come when that fact is known worldwide and the beliefs of today will sound crazy. The quicker the human race jumps away from archaic beliefs and accepts the universe around us, the better off we will all be.
Cardinal Bellarmino, at the trial of Gallileo, had this to say about the earth centered theory: "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Now that we know for a fact that one of these statements is incorrect, what about the other one?
Post a Comment