I want to return briefly to the virulent atheism being spouted by Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University zoologist. Yesterday I quoted Dawkins at some length, especially his claim that the Creation story is just a bronze-age myth that got written down in the book of Genesis. Remember what he said: "It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book-Genesis. ... Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin's bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal."
Dawkins and his fellows usually ignore some very important truths as they dismiss the Bible's creation story as a myth. Dawkins ignores the glaring fact that he and his evolutionary bedfellows have never been able to explain why, if there is no Creator, there is a universe at all. All notions of eternally existent matter or of spontaneous creation are philosophically, logically and scientifically impossible. But to a committed God-hater, that is a small matter. Dawkins and his kind also ignore the mountain of evidence that when we examine many substances at the irreducibly minimum level of complexity that it needs for its very existence, there are still powerful evidences of design. The old Darwinian answer that given enough time "chance" is sufficient to explain all things is absolute nonsense. The truth is that mere chance has no power whatsoever to cause anything. You flip a coin and say that "chance" causes it to fall heads or tails. But that is not so. What causes it to fall one way or the other is the exertion of certain energies: the strength of the flip, the currents of the air, the state of the surface on to which the coin falls. The fact that some of these are outside of the control of the one doing the coin toss doesn't mean that "chance" actually caused anything. Never forget this: chance has no power to cause anything at all. So to put the existence of everything down to chance is an absurdity-which is much worse than a bronze-age myth!
When Dawkins dismisses the Creation story as a bronze-age myth he leaves out the most important fact of all: the Lord Jesus Christ endorsed it as fact. Now Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God. To prove His claim He did many miracles and finally said He would lay down His life and rise again from the dead. No one could claim that He set a standard of proof that anyone less that who He claimed to be could fulfill. And He did fulfill it. The evidence for the Resurrection of Christ is overwhelming. So consider this: the One who claimed to be the Son of God, who showed His power over all areas of the natural world and who died and rose again in validation of His claim has assured us that the Bible's record of creation is true. Richard Dawkins says it isn't. Whom are we to believe? I think the answer is obvious. Dawkins presents himself as rigorously scientific, yet he ignores the most vital parts of the evidence. In truth, he is the apostle of a religious movement. He demands that we accept his man-centered idolatry and mocks the Creator and His work.
In his bid to lay hold of our souls, Dawkins runs head-on into the Lord Jesus Christ. So again, whom will we believe? There is no contest. Perhaps if Dawkins dies and rises again from the dead we may give him a more serious hearing. Until then we'll keep believing the One who did just that.