G20 Protesters - Globe and Mail editor - Jun 26, 2010 - letter by Randall F. More

June 26, 2010


Letter to Editor
Globe and Mail


Re: G20 Protesters

The actions of G20 Toronto protesters seen around the world destroying public, police, and private property are utterly disgraceful.

Sadly, those involved in the protests have no common respect for civil authority.

The Toronto police officers who have the unenviable task "to serve and protect" are to be commended for their superb work in standing against the violence, disrespect, and vandalism.

The actions of those who are complicit make it all so incredibly disappointing and disgraceful for the city, our province, and our country.


Yours truly


Randall F. More, P. Eng.

"Finding Our Way Again" by Brian McLaren - May 20, 2010 - book review by Randall F. More

May 20, 2010

“Finding Our Way Again” by Brian McLaren (Thomas Nelson, 2008)

review by Randall F. More, P. Eng.

McLaren, as a Christian, seems to be writing to Christians to encourage them to grow in their faith and to assist each one of us in "finding our way again." One wonders, however, what, if anything, is accomplished for the gospel when practices of the Islamic faith are mentioned in the same vein as those of Christianity. McLaren makes it sound as though any and all religions are acceptable, which is an unusual posture for a person of his stature.

"Fixed-hour prayer, fasting, Sabbath, the sacred meal, pilgrimage, observance of sacred seasons, giving - all seven of the ancient spiritual practices are common to the major Abrahamic traditions of faith... If we have, indeed, lost our way in the clamor of conflicting systems of belief, perhaps we can rediscover within our religious traditions some undervalued treasures they have in common. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have more in common than many people realize because they all share a primal narrative, and they all flow from a common sacred fountainhead: a single figure, at once famous and mysterious, a Middle Eastern man named Abraham of Ur... and during his lifetime, Abraham - like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad - had an encounter with God that distinguished him from his contemporaries and propelled him into a mission, introducing a new way of life that changed the world" (pp. 21-22).

McLaren deems the seven ancient practices to be very important but many people who have come from backgrounds wherein some of the practices, in fact, have become stumbling blocks to genuine faith, often because the emphasis has been more on the practices, symbols, and icons rather than on the personal relationship and the transforming power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Unlike Abraham and Moses, Jesus didn't have an encounter with God; He is God. Unlike Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, Muhammad is not mentioned in God's Word. As far as many are aware, Muhammad did not have "an encounter with God." Muhammad did have an encounter while in a cave but he was unsure whether it was with God or the devil but his wife, Khadija, assured him that it must have been with God... and hence, because of that encouragement and possible misunderstanding, we now have a religion of one billion people, and growing. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Muhammad's encounter was with God. In fact, if it was with God, then as Christians we should also be listening to what Muhammad had to say.

McLaren suggests that a reinstitution of rites, rituals, and practices within the Christian faith might be good but that is not deemed likely by most Christians when linked to Islam. As Christians, shouldn't we really be committed to accentuating the importance of having a personal Spirit-filled relationship with the risen Saviour rather than having an emphasis on the rituals linked to Islam?

"If the first two Abrahamic practices are pilgrimage and fasting, the third is the holy meal... this meal will take the form of the Passover for Jews, the Eucharist for Christians, and Eid ul-Adha or Eid ul-Fitr for Muslims" (p. 26).

"The world would be a far different place today... if these practices had not enlivened the three Abrahamic faiths, which have played such remarkable roles in our common global history... But if these spiritual practices are kept alive in us and our descendants, we may discover they contain ancient resources desperately needed in the world yet to be born" (p. 29).

One is not sure to what McLaren refers when noting the "remarkable roles in our common global history" that Islam has played. Unfortunately, the most pronounced impact of Islam seems to have been its longstanding hatred of Judaism, Christianity, and the western world.

"Jewish torah, Christian gospel, or Muslim deen - leads us toward the peace, wisdom, and joy we seek" (p. 51).

There is no evidence in history that Islam “leads us toward the peace, wisdom, and joy we seek." Islam is not the good news of Jesus Christ. It offers no earthly hope, no abundant life, and no eternal life for which He came to so freely give. Islam's position on issues of genuine life-giving faith has few, if any, redeeming qualities. Instead of accommodating the Islamic faith as part of our message, shouldn't we instead be speaking the truth of Christ's love and His substitutionary death to all and for all? As Christians, we need to reach out to Muslims but shouldn't we do it by accentuating what Christ offers, not by adopting Islamic practices? For McLaren, "finding our way again" may be important, but for others, a new course may be the best direction.

Liberals or others may suggest that this perspective is intolerant of Muslims. That would be an erroneous conclusion. It is the tenets of Islam which are questioned by many Christians, not Muslims as people who we should love and care for and have regard for their eternal destiny. The hope that we have for our Muslim friends and neighbours is not made complete through Islam.

________

McLaren criticizes the Protestant church for making a mistake with regard to Darwin, analogous to the Catholic Church's mistreatment of Galileo. The difference should not be overlooked. The Catholic Church mistreated Galileo when it had no legitimate right or reason to do so. Galileo's findings never violated any biblical truth and as such he should never have been so fiercely denigrated. The situation for Darwin is the polar opposite in that Darwin denounced some fundamental biblical expositions and the church was then, and is now, in error in not standing up to defend God's Word against Darwin and his godless answers. Sure, McLaren may choose to believe Darwin but his pronouncements, unlike those of Galileo, bear no resemblance to Scripture. McLaren writes somewhat derisively about "today's fundamentalists" but it may be they who still uphold biblical truth with respect to our origins (and for which none of their views, or the biblical pronouncements in this area, have yet been shown by science to be in error) and it is they who may actually be glorifying God through their belief. Evolution brings no glory to God. Sadly, but rightfully, the Catholic Church was humbled by its mistreatment of Galileo but it should have gone on to stand boldly against Darwinism instead of surrendering to Darwin's apostasy and godlessness (p. 133).

In Darwin's case, there is no biblical basis for his heretical and godless philosophy. As much as McLaren may personally differ, the church should have then, and still, stood firm against the onslaught of Darwinism... and admittedly, slavery, as well, as McLaren implies (p. 134).

"Joining a religion is a step in the right direction" (p. 176).

McLaren suggests that "joining a religion is a step in the right direction?" The Bible asks us to come to know Christ and Christ alone. Joining just any religion provides no assurance that one is moving in the right direction.

One can readily appreciate, as McLaren mentions, that he may be working through some of his own issues related to his Plymouth Brethren grounding, just as many others have had to do with their own backgrounds, but it seems as though he is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Ultimately, if that is the case, it will only detract from advancing His kingdom. Shouldn’t we instead, individually work through our own personal situations and backgrounds and then discern those areas, for our own lives, that need refining or re-tuning without giving up on any doctrinal truths?

No impertinence is intended to Mr. McLaren with any of these comments... but it is biblical truth for which we need to boldly stand.

Automotive Bailout and CAW - Apr 24, 2009 - by Randall F. More

April 24, 2009

RE: Automotive Bailout & CAW

The present perilous condition of the North American based automotive industry was predictable thirty years ago. The automotive companies, the Big Three, have many challenges but, now, none are as serious as those stemming from the stranglehold imposed by the autoworker unions on both sides of the border. The domestic based auto producers remained viable through the sixties and into the nineties only because they were operating against little or no Asian competition while at the same time being compelled to use the same uncompetitive unionized labour force which has lost its place, purpose, and direction in the real world of global free market competitive economics.

UAW and CAW members are among the highest paid trade workers on the continent but their excessive demands accumulated over many years have resulted in the gross lack of competitiveness of their employers. The government, however, is not blameless in all of this as it is the government which legitimized non-competitive collective bargaining.

Because of the huge disparity in wages, benefits, and legacy costs, the average fully allocated labour cost for the Big Three is now $74 per hour which is nearly 60% higher than it is for Toyota’s North American manufacturing at $47 per hour. (In the United States, the average fully distributed annual cost is $151,720 for a Chrysler worker and yet only $96,000 for a Toyota worker.) No company can survive when its labour and related costs are so grossly out of line with its competitors. It is an economic impossibility and yet the CAW either doesn’t care or chooses to ignore it.

Sadly, the autoworkers, through Mr. Lewenza, CAW President, don’t seem to understand the gravity of the situation. The CAW and their bosses boast that their wages and benefits have been instrumental in building a middle class in this country. That may be the case, but the class that they have built has largely been at the expense of lesser paid workers in the country who purchase the excessive cost automobiles.  

CAW have been the recipients of the most lucrative wages and benefits known to workers anywhere in the world and without even jeopardizing direct wages, during these very desperate times, a reduction in benefits equating to $22 per hour in both Canada and the United States for 160,000 hourly workers would result in $7.3 billion in annual savings for the Big Three. These savings, coupled with other major changes, are necessary to have any hope of industry survivability. The autoworkers don’t seem to realize that when their employers disappear, their so-called entrenched “rights” and “entitlement” will become no more than a distant memory.

If the autoworkers and their union bosses had genuinely cared about the long term wellbeing of workers, instead of decimating the industry, they would have accepted compensation over the years that permitted the North American based auto companies to grow, thrive, and prosper in the midst of competition, instead of being stifled, threatened, and left at the precipice of oblivion. Quite astonishingly, even now, amidst the most dire conditions, Mr. Lewenza, has made it clear that there will be scant concessions at best. Mr. Lewenza and Mr. Gettelfinger, UAW President, apparently would rather jeopardize every one of the 1.7 million manufacturers’ jobs and retirees, the multi-millions of related jobs, and the long term viability of the industry than be a constructive part of the solution. The union leadership would apparently prefer to have no workers employed at an unsupportable wage than all the workers employed at a reduced wage. Such a position is intellectually absurd. Such intransigence at this late stage serves no fruitful purpose.

It is no longer relevant what any worker was paid in the past; it only really matters what can be sustained going forward. Bargaining at this eleventh hour should not even be part of the pertinent process but regardless, if so, with Mr. Lewenza’s insistence on "pattern bargaining" any bargaining should be patterned after the real competitors, Toyota and Honda. Instead and astonishingly, Mr. Lewenza and his autoworkers continue to hold on to the outmoded belief that they can be paid whatever they desire. In fact, in these very dire circumstances, a very real, genuine, and necessary concession might be one whereby autoworkers would be paid even less than the workers at the transplanted foreign auto companies, at least until the companies are set right again.

There is a major flaw in the system when one person, Mr. Lewenza, possibly having his own ego and personal agenda, can control the fate of an entire industry. Mr. Lewenza argues that his union has a track record of making Canadian auto plants competitive. Few others believe such a preposterous notion.

With no more time to waste, the union needs to assist in rectifying the gross inequities and lopsided costs which are impaling the industry, cannot be sustained, and which, if not promptly addressed, will lead to the demise of the domestic based portion of the industry.

None of this is to minimize other inherent problems in the industry but no taxpayer or government funded assistance should be provided until the autoworkers first volunteer the necessary, significant, and transformational wage and benefit reductions and unless they do, the Big Three will soon become the Big Zero.

Dr. Morgentaler - Order of Canada - Abortion - The Record editor - Jul 6, 2008 - by Randall F. More

July 6, 2008

The Record

Kitchener, Ontario

RE: Letter to the Editor (Dr. Morgentaler – Order of Canada – Abortion)

The Order of Canada award to Dr. Morgentaler is our national shame. Our country and our standards have sunk to a new low. Legalized or not, or by any other name, abortion constitutes the killing of human life.

Dr. Morgentaler’s advocacy for abortion is rooted in the notion that women require “freedom of choice.” He has no regard that the tiny aborted girls will never attain womanhood and will never have the opportunity to exercise “freedom of choice” about anything. Abortion-on-demand allows one person (the mother) to kill another person (the child) in order to solve the first person’s social or economic problem. These are not rightful choices in a moral, righteous, and just society. Abortion is the violation of the divine ethic in pursuit of physical, social, or economic comfort and convenience. Abortion is not the solution to a problem; it is the elimination of a human being perceived to be the problem. The child becomes no more than an object to be discarded at the option of the mother.

Pro-abortionists and Morgentaler contend that a woman should have “reproductive choice” and the “right to control her own body.” Countless rights and choices are available prior to pregnancy. With pregnancy, those choices and rights are relinquished.

Dr. Morgentaler contends that no unwanted child should be brought into the world. No child in Canada is unwanted. There is a never ending stream of childless couples who would cherish the privilege to love, nurture, and raise to maturity an adopted son or daughter. Adoption is the honourable option for all, not abortion.

Apart from the physical risks to the abortive mother, few pro-abortionist counselors, if any, advise the mother seeking abortion of the long term devastating emotional scars that she will bear, often for the remainder of her life. Abortion is not a single act that ends upon the baby’s death.

Pro-choicers contend that abortion must be legalized in order to minimize the risk to life and health associated with illegal back alley abortions. Legal or not, there is at least one death in every abortion.

Abortionists deceitfully argue that to be anti-abortion is to be anti-feminist. On the contrary, abortion is not only anti-child but it is anti-woman, dehumanizing both womanhood and motherhood.

With respect to abortion when pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, even pro-abortionist doctors concede that pregnancy very rarely threatens the life of the mother. Pregnancy is a normal bodily process, not a disease or tumor.

Abortion measured by any logical, biological, or theological standard whatsoever is premeditated murder; the planned and deliberate killing of a human life. We now desperately need a legal standard consistent with these other standards of truth. The embodiment of God’s laws in our laws provides the only assurance for establishing protection for the innocent. Hopefully, the unjustified and unmerited Order of Canada will now provide the impetus for our nation to enact laws which protect the life of the unborn.

Our national Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a farce when the life of the unborn child is precluded from the protection to life that every other human being in our country is afforded. When the most vulnerable in our nation are denied protection to life, all other liberties become a sham. Paradoxically, Morgentaler, a Holocaust survivor, should be the first to want to protect the defenseless and marginalized.

We have an obligation to uphold that which is morally right, not that which is personally convenient. Our democratic system should recognize that majority morality must be checked by the rights of the minority and the minority in this instance is the unborn child. The pro-life struggle is not intended to impose one’s conscience on another but to preserve the precious right to life that is violated in every abortion.

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins - May 15, 2008 - open letter/book review by Randall F. More

May 15, 2008

OPEN LETTER to RICHARD DAWKINS

“The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins (Bantam Books, 2006)

review by Randall F. More, P. Eng.

The God of the Old Testament (p. 51)

You write that, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

What is particularly intriguing about your story is that you seem to have no personal reason for bitterness or hatred toward God; there is nothing that you blame Him for in your own life and yet, all your hatred spews out towards God almost seemingly as a result of the despicable actions of people and their decisions to whom you assign no blame but instead all the blame goes toward God. This seems to demonstrate a trivial understanding of God. If individuals, especially Christians, are involved in repugnant and despicable acts, now or at any time in history, then blame those perpetrators, not God nor the billions of other Christ-honouring Christians. Those who are personally responsible should rightfully be held accountable.

It is difficult to comprehend how you are able to spew so much hatred toward Someone who apparently doesn't even exist. You can freely choose to deny the existence of God but that doesn’t mean that such a belief represents truth.

Your comments and characterization of the God of the Old Testament are extraordinary. The basis of your personal sentiments is not readily understood but what one can conclude is that you have never personally been introduced to the God who I know, through His Son. He is worth knowing. The Old Testament expounds many truths and one of its attributes is that it is a document of relevant history, acknowledging all the blemishes of people throughout history. It is the blemishes of man which should cause us to understand that we have a greater need outside ourselves.

Almost all the characters in the Old Testament are individuals with enormous flaws, failings, blemishes, and sin: Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon, Jonah and many others. All are flawed and blemished but these men, just like you and I, and possibly even worse, are all part of real human history. God mentions these men, not because they are heroes but because through them we can more fully understand our own frailties, brokenness, and sin and that He loves us in spite of our sin and failings.

You seem to have a wealth of knowledge about the Bible and you acknowledge many characters of the Old Testament as though they are real historical characters (which they are) but you can't be bothered to acknowledge the most important characters of all, God and His Son. Such an approach just doesn’t make much sense.

Two of the most important attributes of God are that He is a God of infinite love and of perfect justice. To a holy and righteous God, in a sin filled world, there cannot be one without the other. Love in the absence of justice is not genuine love. It is analogous to an earthly father. The dad who loves his young son gives him the freedom to venture onto the front lawn but he also warns him not to go onto the street and watches him, but when the son disobeys, the good and loving father disciplines him because he loves him so much that he understands the importance of teaching him a life-saving and life-remembering lesson. Our heavenly Father is the same. He provides the love and the freedom but we are also wisely and appropriately disciplined with a hand of earthly justice when we violate or abuse His provisions for us. The really good news, however, is that even when we deserve something more severe, He often extends His grace and mercy.

God gave us two phenomenal gifts. The first one is the amazing gift of free will but knowing our desire for doing evil with this marvellous free gift, He fortunately also gave us the gift of His Son. Because of our sin nature, it is always this gift of free will which gets us into trouble. For those who choose to receive it, He also gave us the second gift so that we could be clothed in His righteousness and be in fellowship with Him by simple, redeeming faith.

The Trinity (p. 55)

You write that, “no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.” That is correct but just because finite man with a finite brain and finite capabilities cannot comprehend the Trinity does not mean that the Trinity does not exist. The Trinity is one of the awesome mysteries of God which no one can or will ever fully understand. For one who does not understand any part of the supernatural at all, you personally may have a particularly difficult time in understanding the Trinity. The Trinity is, indeed, a mystery for all.

Denying Everything Supernatural (p. 57)

You are forthright in saying that you are “attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural.” You can do that but what does it accomplish? You can attack the supernatural as though it does not exist but that does not mean your denial constitutes truth. In fact, by doing so you deny yourself a very wonderful aspect of your own nature and that is the fact that you were created by the supernatural and that you have a soul and a spirit, unlike any of the animals from which you believe you have descended. You can attack the God of the Bible with all other gods but to do so suggests a real lack of understanding of the God of the Bible.

Distinguished Scientists (p. 127)

You write that “the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all. What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite.”

There is certainly no surprise with this statistic. Fortunately, faith, truth, and belief are not determined by popular opinion. In fact, the Bible cautions us against believing that we can have all the answers apart from Him. Non-believing scientists may be considered by many to be distinguished, but certainly not by God. So many of us think that, in our own eyes, we are so wise but the apostle, Paul, cautions us not to overestimate our own wisdom:

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world (I Corinthians 1:20)?

Natural Selection (p. 141)

You write that “Natural selection not only explains the whole of life, it also raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance.”

Natural selection explains no such thing and it is therefore not surprising that you don’t provide even one example whereby organized complexity resulted without any deliberate and intentional guidance. Your statement is not one of fact but of assumption and conjecture.

Irreducible Complexity (p. 148)

You mock the notion of irreducible complexity although at the same time you acknowledge that even Darwin found it absurd to think that the eye could be formed by natural selection. You mock it only because you make a personal decision not to believe it, but again, even though you say that “such intermediates abound in practice,” you provide not one example. It is incredible that your editors would not have required you to offer at least one example of that which you blatantly state as fact, but which is readily disputed by so many others.

Intelligent Design (p. 159)

Contrary to your assertion, NO “intelligent design theorist” would say that “if you don’t understand how something works, never mind; just give up and say God did it.” This is preposterous. In your academic field, you should attempt to get to know in a genuine way some intelligent design theorists so that you may know how they really process information.

God has given each of us amazing capabilities to learn and to understand innumerable truths but most of us will acknowledge that there are indeed many things that we do not know or fully understand and cannot know through our own intellect. In fact, there are many things that mankind may not or will not ever know.

Contrary to your understanding, a wise person of any persuasion will at least give credit where warranted and that may mean acknowledging the supernatural, which means acknowledging God, however repulsive that is to you. I know the reality of God and the supernatural in my own life whereas you make a personal decision to deny it even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That is your prerogative but in doing so you rob yourself of the benefit of a very important and wonderful part of your very being.

The God Hypothesis (pp. 137, 189)

The very good news for you is that the chapter titled, “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,” at the very least, infers that there may be a God. At the extreme then, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist. Of course, even though you may choose not to acknowledge it, no one of any real intellectual persuasion can be a genuine atheist as no one can actually prove that there is no God.

You profess to be an atheist but the very good news (for you) is that you are almost invariably, without even realizing it, a genuine seeker of the truth and of God, even though your outward actions reflect such a dogmatic denial of the truth. The fact that you offer “The God Hypothesis” and remark that “God almost certainly does not exist” might be somewhat encouraging, even to yourself, as hypotheses have the possibility of becoming facts.

As much as you proclaim otherwise, ultimately there are no atheists. When a major earthquake, tsunami, or other disaster comes and the ground beneath us begins to shake, each one of us, including you, will cry out to God or to Jesus. There is rarely, if ever, a cry out by anyone to Buddha, Mohammed, or Allah. Why is that? That is because inherently each one of us has a God-given knowledge, admittedly or otherwise, that there is real life-giving and life-saving power in the God of the Universe. That truth is inherent in each one of us; we didn't evolve that way; that's just the way God made us. Fortunately, for some of us, it doesn't take an earthquake to convince us of that truth. The amazing truth about God is that He extends grace and mercy to each one of us, even when we reject Him so vehemently, and the good news is that He is patient, very patient. He is patient because He desires that each one of us come to Him... by simple faith.

Your atheism, or more accurately your hatred of God, is probably as staunch and entrenched as I have ever seen. One is compelled to inquire as to why you expend so much of your life, effort, and energy for the purpose of convincing others that there is no God? You surely must realize that many of those who you hope to convince are just as sure and convinced in their own belief and views as you are in yours. At least for them, they have a real and genuine hope. Your atheistic view holds no hope... it is one of hopelessness.

Ten Million Years (p. 167)

You write that, “We can safely predict that, if we wait another ten million years, a whole new set of species will be as well adapted to their ways of life as today’s species are to theirs.”

Of course you can safely predict this because you won’t be around to admit the error or to accept blame for the consequences of encouraging such an erroneous belief.

Embarrassed Christians (p. 187)

You write that, “many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd...”

Again, this is preposterous. Any genuine Bible-believing, born again, Spirit filled Christian suffers no such embarrassment.

Unfortunately, in those cases where you may have dialogued with such Christians, it is more likely that your own dogmatic, opinionated, and mocking approach causes some Christians to be reticent about sharing their true beliefs with you. The Bible cautions us accordingly:

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces (Matthew 7:6).

 

God knows that we are wasting our time when we share His truths with those who are clearly not receptive to such things at the time. He does not want His Word trampled on. One, such as yourself, may continue to mock God but you do so at your own peril as ultimately God will not be mocked. The apostle Paul makes that quite clear:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap (Galatians 6:7).
   

Joy of Sex (p. 197)

You write that, “the Darwinian still wants to know why people are vulnerable to the charms of religion... we still need the Darwinian explanation of why it works. In the case of sexual lust, the answer is easy: our brains are set up to enjoy sex because sex, in the natural state, makes babies.”

The Darwinian wants to know this because he has such a difficult time accepting the answer that we enjoy sex precisely because God made us… to enjoy sex… male and female… plain and simple… and it is true that sex creates babies but that is not why we enjoy it. That is most blatantly a bogus evolutionary notion. In fact, another of the amazing aspects of nature which evolution cannot explain is the origin of the sexes in the first instance.

Child Brains (p. 205)

You write that, “natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.”

Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with building children’s brains to believe whatever their parents tell them. You say this as though it is fact but really only because it is consistent with your entire philosophy. God made each of our brains to be very receptive to the teaching of parents because He gave the primary responsibility to parents to raise up godly children and to train up the child in the way that he should go.

Morals, Religion, & Goodness (pp. 241, 245, 257, 258, 264, 265, 280, 283, 289)

You write that, “many religious people find it hard to imagine how, without religion, one can be good, or would even want to be good.”

Firstly, goodness is a relative term as it seldom refers to moral excellence, but most Christians already know that any goodness that any of us have is a result of a God-given conscience that He gives to each one of us, including atheists. That is how we were created. Of course, evolution has no hope of ever explaining the derivation of inherent human morality. At the other extreme, evil prevails when our consciences become seared to such an extent that we no longer properly respond to them.

You write that, “our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past.” No it can’t. That is a gross assumption and conjecture without any basis. You are forced to make that assumption due to your own prejudicial Darwinian approach. Sure, you can believe that a sense of right and wrong is derived by a Darwinian past but it is because you are forced to believe that. You can come to no other conclusion when you preclude God from consideration. Your belief, however, doesn’t necessarily represent truth.

As you suggest, “we do not need God in order to be good – or evil” but what we already have is a God-given conscience that affects our conduct, our behaviour, and our morality. “Our morals, whether we are religious or not, come from another source; and that other source, whatever it is, is available to all of us, regardless of religion or lack of it.” This is all true and it is agreed that morals don’t come from religion as they are “available to all of us, regardless of religion or lack of it.” The source, which you are not too sure about, is the God-given conscience with which each human being is bestowed. Having been given a conscience then, one does not need God to do good things, but one most certainly needs God if one desires to be clothed in His righteousness which is the awesome and wonderful privilege that is available to each one of us.

You say that, "moral intuitions are often not well thought out but that we feel them strongly anyway, because of our evolutionary heritage." In fact, moral intuitions are very well thought out as they are the result of our God-given heritage and part of our God-given conscience. The moral code is His idea, not man’s idea, and it certainly didn’t arise through some evolutionary process.

You write, “Apologists cannot get away with claiming that religion provides them with some sort of inside track to defining what is good and what is bad – a privileged source unavailable to atheists.” The good news for atheists is that the source is, in fact, ingrained in each one of us, including atheists. The moral code has been written by God on the heart of every person.

It is worthy of note that evolution provides not one scintilla of understanding with respect to the origin of man’s conscience or his inherent moral nature. This unique and special quality in mankind is God ordained. Man is born with His morality inherent in his being. It is man’s choice to walk away from such knowledge. God planted a conscience and morality within the heart of every person:

...they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness... (Romans 2:15).

Atheists can deny this but that does not nullify the truth of it. You write that, “My purpose has been to demonstrate that we (and that includes most religious people) as a matter of fact don’t get our morals from scripture.” One can continue to deny it but, in fact, our moral code is inherent in our very being and was inscribed in stone, written in Scripture, and more importantly written on the heart of each person.

You say that, "If morality is merely a matter of choice, Hitler could claim to be moral by his own eugenically inspired standards." Yes, that is exactly what happened. With the underpinnings of his own version of Catholicism and under the influence of Ernst Haeckel, the staunch evolutionary atheist, and a contemporary of Darwin, Hitler was driven by the evolutionary Darwinian notion of superiority of his race and survival of the fittest as his justification to obliterate those he believed to be inferior and unworthy. That was his personal perverted morality... a bankrupt personal morality.

Nazism, apartheid, the holocaust, slavery, racism, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and other societal perversions are ultimately rooted in evolutionary philosophy... a philosophy which has no understanding of the God of the Bible and certainly no understanding of ultimate accountability to a loving God... but also a God of ultimate justice. Some of these actions are, sadly, sometimes even advanced in the name of Christianity but, one thing of which you can be sure, that is not genuine Christianity.

You say that, "Fortunately, however, morals do not have to be absolute." Morals are obviously not absolute for you. Anyone can choose to establish his own morality, which many do, but that does not make it right, except to you. It is agreed, however, that atheists have no moral absolutes. Of course, with evolution and without acknowledging God, that is at least an intellectually consistent position but that does not make it right or make it truth. One can fly in the face of truth but it doesn't get one anywhere. It may be intellectually consistent but it's intellectually wrong. In fact, God has established some absolute morals. God also understood that no one could ever live up to His holy and righteous standard because each one of us also has a sin nature. Fortunately, because He is not only a God of righteousness but a God of infinite and perfect justice and a God of infinite love, He sent His Son to pay the penalty for your sin and mine.

From your writing, one can tell that you will not really understand much of what I write, but genuine Christianity, unlike “religion,” is not ultimately about morals and rule-keeping; it is about having a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe through His Son. For the genuine Bible-believing, Christ-honouring, born again believer, any adherence to any morals ultimately has to do with desiring to live a life which honours Christ, not one lived out of fear or for rule-keeping sake, but out of a genuine love for Him. Virtually all of your references have to do with “religion” to which I mostly agree. I am, however, speaking about life giving faith – not religion. The difference is very important and profound. Somehow through your life experiences and your education you have been given a highly contorted and grossly distorted view of genuine Christianity.

Animals and Altruism (p. 247)

You write that "animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes."

Yes, this animal behaviour is accurate but only because God sovereignly placed those necessary instincts and genes within each species.

Symbiotic Relationships (p. 248)

Sure, you can say that, "bees need nectar and the flower needs pollinating" implying that evolution is responsible for this wonderful symbiotic relationship. This, in fact, is much more likely attributable to God-given and God-ordained instincts. To date, evolution has had no success in explaining symbiotic relationships.

Why Be Good (p. 259)

You issue the challenge, “Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just... looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky.”

This is true for every non-Christian religion in the world and even for some so-called Christian denominations but this is NOT the good news of Jesus Christ. Your assertion applies to religion and religiosity, but not to genuine Bible-believing faith. Your view represents a misunderstanding of the precepts of Christianity and the gospel. Any desire for a Christ-honouring believer to do good things results from a genuine love for Him and because he has the power of His Spirit which dwells within the life of every believer. Any other understanding is faulty.

You seem to have the right idea about “religion” in many areas but for some reason you do not demonstrate a real understanding or grasp of real faith. Genuine faith has virtually nothing to do with religion. A genuine Christ-honouring person doesn't do good out of fear of punishment from God for doing otherwise; his desire and motivation for doing good is out of a genuine love for God and a genuine love for others. That is what a personal relationship with the living God is all about. It is not unlike the love and motivation that a husband has for his wife which, if genuine, is lived out and demonstrated through his actions, conduct, and care, love, and regard for her. (In fact, love is another one of the concepts that evolution has no hope of ever explaining.) Sure, most of your comments are correct with respect to religion but they have very little to do with real life giving faith.

You say that if “you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.” God is not necessary for us to be good except in the sense that it is His God-given conscience that He has bestowed upon mankind that leads us to goodness, even for those who do not know Him, including atheists. Sure, there are many instances in which religion "systematically exploits personal guilt" but that is not genuine faith and it certainly does not represent genuine Christianity.

Most people would agree with you; goodness has little or nothing to do with religion. However, any goodness in man, in fact, occurs only as a result of a God-given moral directive and conscience. It has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with Him. This is one of the many things that distinguishes man from animal in that man is infused with a conscience in that he is made in God's image, having moral characteristics. Unfortunately, man also has a human attribute known as a sin nature.

Immorality, Religiosity, and Christian Nations (pp. 262, 263)

You say that, “Such research evidence as there is certainly doesn’t support the common view that religiosity is positively correlated with morality.”

Your comment reflects the fact that you are either intentionally or inadvertently mixing up and confusing religiosity with Bible-believing and Bible-honouring faith.

Similarly, you refer to a study which, “reached the devastating conclusion that ‘higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.’”

You also write that crime rates are higher in Christian countries than in non-Christian countries but the deduction and the inference is wrong.

Because of the enormous freedoms offered to all people in Christian countries, they include and attract many non-Christian citizens. Crime generally results from the abuse of such personal freedoms and liberties, usually by those who have no genuine faith. In atheistic, communist, and dictator run countries, freedoms are denied or rigorously, forcefully, and abusively constrained by the government. In Muslim countries, freedoms are constrained by the ayatollahs and by Islamic dogma with the threat of death for some violations of their own moral code. Christian nations, on the other hand, provide freedom for all individuals to choose all aspects of life and very often that includes the personal freedom to abuse such privileges. Prosperous and faith based democracies offer freedoms for all people and that includes the freedom to be involved in wrongful acts.

What can more likely rightfully be deduced from the study is that “prosperous democracies” referred to in the study are a direct result of faith based beliefs and initiatives acting within those nations.

You are so readily able to dismiss and devalue the incredible richness of all that genuine Christian faith has provided, preserved, promoted, encouraged, and advanced for much of the world including literature, education, health, arts, sciences, charity, justice, women’s rights, sanctity of marriage, honouring authority, protection of children and the unborn, and abolition of slavery. These gains, privileges, and rights do not occur in atheistic countries or in the countries of other religions where genuine Christianity does not prevail. You are seemingly unable to concede that many of the liberties which you personally enjoy came as a result of the positive and powerful influence of Christianity.

If you are still not sure of the profound impact of the ruthless and disgraceful atheistic and godless influences on the world over the very recent past, you only need to re-examine the despicable regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Papa Doc Chevalier, Idi Amin, Nicolai Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Fidel Castro Ruz, amongst others.

Much of your writing revolves around the countless ills, abuses, and atrocities associated with religion and for that there is little disagreement but you should not equate any religion or the fallenness of man with genuine life giving and God-honouring faith. The two should NEVER be equated as they are not related. (I would really encourage you to write about the wrongs and ills of religion, but leave God out of it - He has never wanted any part of it and He doesn’t deserve the bad name that you, others, and religion give Him.)

Scripture and Canonization (p. 268)

You write that, "much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists,... spanning nine centuries... may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.”

You are suggesting that the Bible cannot be the Word of God. When a manufacturer makes a new car, new lawnmower, or new piece of equipment, it produces a manual to ensure its proper operation. God would only be a very little God if He couldn't even produce His own Manual for the pinnacle of His Creation, mankind. You can be quite sure that God sovereignly superintended all the writing of the Bible, His Manual for mankind, accomplished through His human authors.

The Bible may appear to you to be cobbled together but that is primarily because you may not understand the canonization of Scripture. You can be quite sure that the consolidation of 66 unique books authored by many individuals over a period of a thousand years might “appear” to be chaotically assembled but in its finality, it is a book written by authors whose writings were superintended by God for His purposes.

Contrary to what you have done throughout your book, the Bible, if properly understood, should never be compared to any other writings of any religion. No religion apart from Christianity purports to have a book written by God.

Through God’s Word we have supernatural revelation about many aspects of God’s plan and about eternity and yet you purposely choose to deny it. That is certainly your prerogative but it robs you of truth and very little is accomplished with such a perspective.

His Commandments & Other Gods  (pp. 276, 282, 299)

You sarcastically write that, “If we took the Ten Commandments seriously, we would rank the worship of the wrong gods, and the making of graven images, as first and second among sins” and you imply how easy it would be to abide by such directives. You mockingly write that you think that it would be far easier to not be tempted by foreign gods compared to coveting another’s wife when you say that the “irresistible temptation to whore with foreign gods is something we moderns find harder to empathize with." You are quite mistaken. How little you really understand God’s Word and who He is and what He desires of us. Possibly even look at yourself for a moment, and you are not unlike most of us. You have all your own gods and earthly idols: your education, your career, your books, your family, your health, your earthly wisdom, your wealth, and whatever other "gods" that have distracted you from knowing the one true God and from acknowledging that all that you have and all that you are is ultimately from Him. These are your idols. We are no better today than 6,000 years ago, likely worse. Fortunately, He is a very patient and loving God and He desires that each one of us come to know Him, regardless of the gods that impair our vision in our search.

Another of your advocated personal and humanly devised commandments is, “always respect the right of others to disagree with you” and yet, paradoxically, you then denigrate those who have a differing view than yourself. Apparently, it all has to be seen your way. You use your book to mock faith and those who choose to demonstrate it in their own lives but you have difficulty upholding even your own simple commandments.

Although you trivialize it, He demands that we first honour Him with our lives. We can, if we choose, be so arrogant as to ignore the Commandments that God has given each one of us and instead make up our own as you have done. That was essentially the sin of Adam and Eve, and each one of us today, whereby we believe that we can each make up our own rules. That is the essence of sin; going our own way; choosing to do our own thing. What you don’t realize is that even your own personally chosen morals and values are a result of your God-given conscience and a God ordained built-in moral code and certainly not a result of some convoluted evolutionary process. Man is a sinner; monkeys and amoebae are not. Monkeys and amoebae have no consciences. That is just the way God intentionally created them. He chose not to create them in His image. They're just animals.

Even the most hateful, vile criminal has had, at one time, a God-given conscience but through time and by continuing to ignore it, his conscience  becomes seared to the extent that it no longer has any power in his life as his life revolves around his own God-rejecting sinful way of thinking.

The Ten Commandments were not primarily written as a standard for rule-keeping; they were written as a benchmark or guidepost to show that each one of us falls short of the mark; how far short does not matter; it is only that we all fall short of God's holiness and righteousness. God recognized at the outset that we could not adhere to His standards in our own strength; that's the primary reason that He gave us His Son. NO ONE can uphold the Ten Commandments. As a matter of fact, it gets even tougher in the New Covenant when Jesus comes. The Old Testament says not to steal; Jesus comes to say that we shouldn't even covet what belongs to someone else. Jesus says that it is not enough not to commit adultery - that should be a “no brainer” - but that we shouldn't even lust after someone. The good news, however, is that He came so that we could each live our lives in His strength through the indwelling power of His Holy Spirit. This is Christianity and this is what makes Christianity different than any and every other religion in the world. Genuine Christianity is not really a religion at all; it is a living faith; it is not about keeping and maintaining rules; it is not about fear of punishment and judgment; genuine Christianity is about allowing Him to live in our lives through the strength and power of His Holy Spirit. It is about living a life for Him motivated by our love for Him because He first loved us. Your book dwells so much on religion but any genuine Bible-believing follower of Christ would agree with most of your comments related to the horrendous ills of religion. That is not genuine Christianity and never has been.

The countless stories in His Word of fallen and sinful human beings are not shared for the purpose of being primary examples of how to live; their lives are shared so that we can understand each of our own human struggles and frailties and to realize how far we are away from God’s holy and righteous standard. You seem to miss much of the point about what God wants to do and accomplish in each of our lives.

Indoctrinating Children (p. 300)

Even when you desire to personally make up your own commandments including, “Do not indoctrinate your children…,” it is very difficult to believe, based on everything that you have written, that you have not already indoctrinated your own children with your own godless beliefs.

You mock faith, especially that in the life of a child, but even a young boy only properly grows to manhood with a sense of value, self-worth, and maturity if he has first and foremost demonstrated genuine faith and trust in his earthly father and mother, and a reliance on what his parents have provided in terms of emotional, physical, and intellectual support through his young and formative years, beginning at birth. A healthy young son learns to trust his father and that trust begins with a blind faith. To mock faith of any sort is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of its power and the value and importance of it in each of our lives, including your own, and that of your children.

New Testament Injustice (p. 285)

You write that, “New Testament theology adds a new injustice, topped off by a new sadomasochism whose viciousness even the Old Testament barely exceeds.”

With regard to the crucifixion of Christ, most would agree with its abhorrence... and yes, sadly and unfortunately many misunderstandings can be traced back to religion. The Cross of history may be analogous to the electric chair of today, which is equally abhorrent, but we should respectfully remember the Cross as a reminder that the most undeserving Person in all of history took it upon Himself to accept the just consequences of your sin and mine, for a holy and righteous God, through the most abhorrent treatment known to mankind. As much as you seem not to like it, and as much as you may not fully understand His plan; that is what is required of a holy and righteous God. God Himself, through the death of His Son, the perfect and sinless sacrifice, paid the just penalty for our sin, yours and mine, for you and I, instead of you and I. (Frankly, and with no offense to you, in the eyes of a holy and righteous God, you and I are not even worthy of paying the penalty for our own sin. That is just a measure of how holy and righteous He really is.) You may not like any part of His story or His plan or His provision and you may not even believe that there is anything wrong with sin, but regardless, that does not mean that it is not truth and fact; it just means that you make a personal choice not to believe it.

Sin, Sin, Sin (p. 285)

You write that, “the Christian focus is overwhelmingly on sin sin sin sin sin sin sin. What a nasty little preoccupation to have dominating your life.”

Such a remark is a reflection of a misunderstanding of genuine born again Christianity. It may reflect what you have come to understand about Christianity, and although unfortunate, it is somewhat understandable, but it has no semblance to the truth of Christianity. It is little wonder that you so harshly denounce everything related to Christianity. Sin is NOT the preoccupation of a Christian who has foremost been freed from the power of sin and has allowed Christ to dwell in his life as a believer.

As you mention, early and contemporary theologians (and Christians) dwell on sin but that does not make it right and that does not mean that such emphasis should be our model or example. That is just more religiosity which even God hates and came to rescue us from through His Son. We are far better to understand that this is not where God chooses for us to dwell and you would also be much better off to dwell on what Christ has to offer and not dwell on the pathetic lives and commentaries of fallen man. You will miss every important aspect of what He has to offer if you only dwell on earthly human examples, and bad ones at that. There is much about which you write regarding religion and religiosity which many Bible-believing Christians would agree but it is important to understand the difference.

None of us may think of ourselves as sinners, but sin is just part of our human nature and it is all encompassing, not just that of murder, stealing, rape, or adultery but impatience, unkindness, lust, selfishness, intolerance, pride, greed, arrogance, and others are all sin as well. Sin means that we have missed the mark and it doesn’t matter by how much we miss the mark; it only matters that we have missed the mark.

You are offended by a God who seems to blame Adam for your sin. Without knowing you personally, I do know that, just like myself, you have some qualities that are less than positive attributes that you have inherited from your father (and mother) and these are known as sin, including impatience, intolerance, unkindness, arrogance, lust, pride, jealousy, selfishness (from the “selfish gene,” of course), and others. That is our sin nature. (As a matter of fact, just like myself, you were selfish from the moment you were born evidenced by the fact that you cried the first moment when you didn't get what you wanted.) Your sin nature, just like your athletic nature was inherited from your mom and dad, and originally from Adam and Eve. Yes, we do not need to blame our parents or even Adam for our negative and sinful qualities but, whether you believe it or not, ultimately our inclination and nature to sin was inherited from Adam... not from an amoeba and not from a monkey. Monkeys and amoebae are NOT sinners. You and I are. Amoebae, monkeys, and elephants have instincts but they do not have sin natures. We can work in our own strength to minimize our negative qualities and that will most certainly be fruitful in our lives, but we will never fully rid ourselves of some aspects of those inherent qualities. That is just part of our human nature. That is not a blame game; that is just a statement of fact. None of us is immune from our sin nature and in the absence of a God-given moral code, you may not even consider them as sin or wrong.

It just goes to remind us that we are all descendents of Adam and as such we have inherited his sin nature and have been born spiritually separated from God in need of reconciliation with Him which He provides through the awesome love of His Son.

Christian Doctrine (p. 287)

You write that, “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent.”

You seem to want to pretend that you should be the one who has a plan for mankind. God has His own plan. He is God and His plan is the only one which really matters, not your plan nor mine. Although you don’t agree with His plan or maybe don’t even fully understand His plan, you may possibly begin to understand the horrific pain and suffering which His Son endured for you.

The very sad part is that most often the “intellectual” just cannot bring himself to understand what Christ has done on his behalf. The apostle, Paul, put it all in the right perspective:

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (I Corinthians 1:25).

Martin Luther King & Ghandi (p. 307)

“Although Martin Luther King was a Christian, he derived his philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience directly from Gandhi, who was not.”

This may all be correct but ultimately Gandhi was living out the precepts of Jesus. Gandhi knew who Jesus was and what He taught and how He lived out His own life. Many atheists live out many of the commands and values of Jesus without acknowledging it. Gandhi had the right philosophy of non-violence but he failed to acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour. The Christian life is far more than living the precepts of Jesus; it involves allowing Christ to reign in our lives through His Holy Spirit.

Common Humanity and Nazis (p. 307)

You say that there is, "the increased understanding that each of us shares a common humanity with members of other races and with the other sex – both deeply unbiblical ideas that come from science, especially evolution. One reason black people and women and, in Nazi Germany, Jews and gypies have been treated badly is that they were not perceived as fully human."

What Bible are you reading? Firstly, the Bible acknowledges only one race, the human race. God makes it quite clear that we are all of ONE blood of different nations and tribes but not different races. Racism itself is rooted in the godless philosophy of evolution.

Secondly, God made it clear in Genesis that we are made in His image as BOTH male and female and our full humanity is only attained together. In actuality, evolution CANNOT even explain the fact that there are two sexes.

Thirdly, the atrocities of Hitler and Nazi Germany were perpetrated almost exclusively due to Hitler’s belief in evolutionary dogma and racism instigated largely by Ernest Haeckel.

Stalin, Hitler, and Darwin (pp. 309, 310, 311)

In reference to Stalin, it is naive to say that, "there is no evidence that his atheism motivated his brutality." You can be sure that, just as with each person, Stalin’s motivation, about most things, was a function of his worldview and his atheism, both of which are rooted in evolution and godlessness.

You find it comically audacious of someone’s notion that, "Hitler was a bad man, Christianity teaches goodness, therefore Hitler can't have been a Christian!" You can say this mockingly but the most comical and ironic part is the fact that this is true. Hitler lived a life of self justified religiosity that had absolutely nothing to do with genuine Christianity and he most certainly never led a Christ centred life. Genuine faith is NEVER demonstrated in words only; it is always evidenced through the life led.

There is little doubt that both Stalin and Hitler were both a composite of their religious backgrounds with Hitler being a professing Catholic. Unfortunately, your premise misses the mark completely. Few people would dispute the gross, repugnant, and abusive ills of religion now and through the ages but that is what you should direct your disdain towards, not to God. Most of us are quite sure that God is equally appalled. Genuine Bible-believing faith, evidenced through the life of a Christian, has and wants nothing to do with religion or religiosity. Religion is a man-made concoction which carries with it all the fallenness of man but very little of it has anything to do with life giving faith. Jesus made this quite clear to the Pharisees and the apostle, Paul, made it equally clear in reference to his own early life as a Jew. Do not be mistaken, however, Adolf Hitler was driven to exterminate the Jews, blacks, invalids, and others who he deemed as misfits as a result of evolutionary doctrine and the “survival of the fittest” philosophy, believing that he was part of a superior race. His evolutionary notions were fuelled by Ernest Haeckel who was a contemporary of Darwin and an atheist and an evolutionist.

You write that, “Martin Luther was a virulent anti-Semite.” Luther’s views in this area, just as for some others who claim a Christian faith, are indefensible. It is a reminder that we should not be dissuaded by the erroneous views of others.

Books & Evidence (pp. 319, 320)

You write that, “Books about evolution... are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence... When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. This conspicuously doesn’t happen with holy books.” You also write that, “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it.” These statements are erroneous on a few accounts.

Firstly, it was known for a great number of years that the evolutionary concept of embryonic capitulation was a bogus concept and yet this and other untruths were repeated and perpetrated for a very long time. Secondly, evolution statements are NEVER buttressed. There is NO evidence which supports evolution unequivocally. I challenge you to provide ONE, just ONE. In your entire book you volunteer many notions, perspectives, hypotheses, and conjectures regarding evolution but not one single piece of supporting conclusive scientific evidence. Thirdly, the holy book, the Bible, is declared to be God’s breathed and inspired Word. To date, there are no known mistakes. It is acknowledged by those who know God’s Word that it will never need rewriting. Even facts of history and geography that once were believed to have been in error have been proven to be accurate. All the writing was superintended by God. Portions of the Bible may seem quite irrelevant to an onlooker but that doesn’t mean that it is in error. It is important to know that the Ceremonial and Civil Laws were written for the period of the Old Testament but the Moral Code was written for all time.

One is unwise to believe in evolution just because one doesn't take the time to properly investigate Creation, or even worse, to believe in evolution just because one chooses to deny God primarily because he doesn't like the God of the Bible. Truth is what matters, not just conjecturing the truth.

Scientific Enterprise (pp. 321, 323)

You write that, “As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise.” How unfortunate! The God of the Bible is the God of all science. You make a mistake when you blatantly reject such truths. Surely you are also aware that most major scientific discoveries in world history were made by Bible-believing Christians, ones who honoured God in their lives and their work and He honoured them in return.

You also write, “Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds.” This is not the case. Bible-believing Christians desire an open forum with respect to scientific education. They worry about atheists indoctrinating the same young minds with biased interpretations of science and godless beliefs.

Evolution is a Fact (p. 339)

You write that, “...evolution is a fact.” As a scientist you would know that, from a scientific perspective, neither evolution nor Creation can ever legitimately be considered as scientific facts.

Further, in more than 400 pages, you frequently refer to evolution as though it is a fact and yet you do not provide one piece of evidence that supports such a notion and certainly not one to the unequivocal exclusion of Creation.

One of the great deceptions perpetrated on the unsuspecting public is the notion that evolution is a scientific fact. The essence of the scientific method is twofold, namely; direct or experimental observation and repeatability. Neither evolution nor Creation can ever be observed experimentally nor repeated and therefore neither can ever qualify as proven scientific facts. As a biologist and a scientist, you should know that it is disingenuous to state otherwise. (As an evolutionist, you should be encouraged to write about the Evolution Hypothesis.)

Evolutionists do not like the Creation model because it imposes a Creator which is to the atheist’s disdain. The disdain has nothing to do with science. Evolution constitutes a direct assault on the authority of Scripture and represents the essence of apostasy. Denial of God’s sovereignty in Creation is fundamental in the rejection of His authority in every aspect of life. David, the psalmist reminds us of the root problem:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Evolution and the atheistic worldview are rooted in paganism which is predicated upon the belief that matter is eternal and that everything has risen from it. Atheism arbitrarily denies and denounces the supernatural and therefore the atheist robs himself of a very real and important part of life.

With regard to ongoing political and educational debates, we should not be “steam-rolled” by politicians and educators who insist upon teaching evolution in our nation’s classrooms to the exclusion of Creation under the false notion that evolution is a scientific fact. It is NOT. Any person or institution that is genuinely interested in scholarly excellence should ensure that both hypotheses are taught together and taught either in philosophy, religion, or science classes but not considered as scientific facts.

There is no evidence that you are genuinely seeking the truth regarding issues of religion, faith, or science as you are already well entrenched in your view.

Faith, Virtue, and Islam (p. 346)

You write that, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue.” You offer blatant universal statements which you must surely know bear little resemblance to the real world. Within Christianity, genuine faith is indeed a virtue, but it is not to be without thoughtful and disciplined living. The primary difference between yourself and Christians is that you cannot bring yourself to recognize the supernatural. You will, therefore, by default, hold all the biases which are so evident in your writing. You are no less guilty of deliberately implanting your own prejudicial ideas into the vulnerable minds of your innocent children and other lives which you impact.

Yes, it is correct that faith is a virtue and it is something that we should teach our children but most certainly not unquestioned faith, as you suggest. God gave us minds and intellect to understand who He is and the plan that He has for each one of us. God loves a seeking and questioning heart. It is really without reason or merit to mock those who profess a faith.

Jihads, Crusades, and Islam (p. 347)

You write that, “Faith is an evil... Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them... to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades.”

No one can remember the last Anglican jihad and the last crusade was nearly a thousand years ago. Throughout your book, in virtually every passage, you have grouped all religions together as though they have some relevant commonality. This serves no meaningful purpose. In fact, you should be aware that Islam has more in common with atheism than it does with Christianity. The only commonality that either atheism or Islam have with Christianity is that they co-exist on the same planet.

Lots of people do lots of egregious things in the name of religion. Your book points out many of them but in most or all cases they have nothing to do with genuine Bible-believing faith. They represent an abuse and distortion of Christian faith. Most people, and God, are just as appalled as yourself.

True Faith, Dangerous Faith, & Aberrations (pp. 348, 353)

You write that, “Faith can be very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” Atheism, in fact, is equally dangerous.

If individuals, especially Christians, as you mention, are involved in repugnant and despicable acts, now or at any time in history, then you can rightfully blame those perpetrators, but not God and not billions of other Christ-honouring believers. Criticizing those who have a real and evident faith accomplishes nothing and leads to a distortion and misunderstanding of the real God of the Bible.

Much of your book is about your disdain for religion but I think that in your life, for whatever reason, you have missed the most relevant issue. Most of your comments about religion are correct. In fact, countless Christians share your views about the ills and atrocities attributed to religion. There are, however, two significant errors with respect to your assessment. Firstly, Christianity cannot legitimately be compared to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion in the world. Genuine Christianity is really not a religion; it is a personal relationship with the living God, through His Son. No other faith in the world is based on having a personal relationship with the Creator.

No Bible-believing, Christ-honouring believer would speak with anything but disgust about the atrocities that have been perpetrated through thousands of years of history in the name of Christianity. We can all be quite sure that God Himself is appalled by many events that have been conducted in His name. Jesus spoke decisively against religion: to the moneychangers in the temple, to those who wanted to stone the adulteress, to the Pharisees who thought that religion and rule-keeping were all that mattered, to the Jews who wouldn’t assist as the Good Samaritan did, to Nicodemus who didn’t understand about being born again. The apostle, Paul, finally came to understand that his own religiosity of being the Hebrew of all Hebrews would accomplish nothing, and is certainly not what God desired for him. The good news is that He came to redeem each one of these individuals, and you and I. You do a disservice to yourself and to genuine Christianity when you deliberately choose to ignore what Christianity truly represents. It is NOT a religion; it is a personal faith in and a relationship with the risen Saviour.

You also write that there is a “presumptuousness whereby religious people know, without evidence, that the faith of their birth is the one true faith, all others being aberrations or downright false.”

As you imply, many parents may think that they know that the faith of their birth is true, just as atheist parents believe about atheism. This indeed becomes a perpetuating problem. Just because there are a multitude of religions in the world doesn’t mean that they conform to God’s desire for each one of us. God cautions us against any phony religious or belief system and commands us to raise our children in His way only:

“These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up...” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).

You can choose to ignore God’s admonition in raising your children His way but it will ultimately only be to their own harm and detriment. Regardless of any belief or faith of any parents, it is the responsibility of parents to raise children according to God’s Word and if parents have a different heritage, then that could, indeed, be a big problem but it doesn’t absolve anyone of the responsibility to seek or to know the truth. You can shirk your God-given responsibility in your own home but it will ultimately be at great cost, whether you deny it or not.

Baptism & Religious Abuses (p. 354)

You write that “the idea that baptizing an unknowing, uncomprehending child can change him from one religion to another at a stroke seems absurd.”

I have no idea from where you derive your notions about genuine Christianity but some of them are in error. Baptism, in accordance with the Word of God, is intended to be an act of obedience for a new believer who has made a personal profession of faith. Although there are differing views, baptism does not affect a person's salvation and it is not something that a parent or anyone else can rightfully do or decide for another person, including for one’s own children. Baptism is essentially an outward sign of an inner life Spirit filled change. It would seem that a number of the things which you have been taught are not strictly in accordance with God’s Word and although they may be prevalent in some religious communities, they seem to be a misapplication of some biblical truths.

It is unfortunate that you have such a hodgepodge of information about Christianity, and about which very little is accurate. You speak derisively about very real abuses associated with rituals and practices, including baptism, but again, your understanding is not correct.

As Erwin Lutzer writes in his book, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible, “the history of the church has been a bittersweet story, combining deeds of heroism with deeds of shame. But we are not ashamed of Jesus Christ, who is the center and core of Christianity...”

Faith & Intellectual Arrogance (pp. 365, 367, 395)

You mention highly educated professors who have given up their faith and become atheists and with that you say, "Just think what the ordeal must be like for less intellectually robust people, less equipped by education and rhetorical skill than they are." Ironically, intellectual robustness is, itself, often the root problem. Many of us think we're too smart to come with simple child-like faith to a love and understanding of the God of the Universe.

You write that, “It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the majority of atheists I know disguise their atheism behind a pious facade.” This wouldn’t surprise anyone. God’s Word cautions us against our own pride in believing that we can know the answers apart from Him:

Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22).

Our human pride and arrogance often cause us to think that we know more than God. This is the essence of sin, just as it was for Adam and Eve. We are cautioned that such a problem and perspective is usually a far bigger problem among so-called “intellectuals.”

The notion of your colleague, Nicholas Humphrey, that, "we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible... than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon" is absurd beyond measure. Wouldn't that just be great whereby all the children of the world would instead be indoctrinated with Mr. Humphrey's warped and oppressive thinking instead of being nurtured by one's own parents? It is rather absurd for any so-called free thinking "intellectual" to want to ensure that only his own contorted beliefs and his notion of "the truth" are imposed on the world's children. Just think, after birth, parents would no longer be needed as most of them wouldn't act the way Mr. Humphrey would want them to act. It all sounds a little bit like Russia, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany, or even worse.

You write, “I thank my own parents for taking the view that children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think.” Without knowing what really went on in your own home, it would appear that your own recollections have been impaired in that everything else that you write actually mocks anything that anyone else thinks if different than your own. You claim that children can “grow up and decide that the Bible is literally true” when they are “exposed to all the scientific evidence” and yet you want to deny everyone the opportunity for people to investigate all the available evidence. What kind of privilege and freedom is it in your own home for your child who may want to believe that the Bible may be literally true when you've also told him or her that the Bible is not literally true and that such a notion is plain rubbish? You most certainly haven't allowed your children to examine the scientific evidence which offers an alternative to evolution when you speak with such disdain, disgust, and mockery of someone else's perspective. There is no part of your approach which encourages genuine freedom of thought and you are only fooling yourself and your own children in the process.

You mock every religion in the world but then on the other hand you say that one should be able to speak with a sense of superiority in regard to one’s own religion. Which way is it? You pretend to promote independent thought but then you mock those who believe something different than yourself.

Geological History & Reputable Theologians (pp. 377, 378)

You say that, "The implication that the scriptures provide a literal account of geological history would make any reputable theologian wince.”

Surely you must know that there are many reputable theologians who do not wince at a literal interpretation of the geological history in Scripture. We can all thank God that the truth of Scripture (and science) is not based on popular opinion. You should know that no aspect of geological history recorded in Scripture has ever been disproved by science.

Contrary to your assertion, no one desires "to subvert evidence-based science education and replace it with biblical scripture." You have missed the point. There are many scientists undertaking genuine scientific research who come to different conclusions than yourself with regard to the evidence. To mock them accomplishes nothing and is certainly not consistent with either scholarly study or a genuine search for truth or your assertion that you respect others. How do you personally work with colleagues who have differing views than your own when you speak so derisively about their beliefs and interpretations? Such an approach only leads to stagnation in any scientific study or search for truth.

Ecumenical Christmas Image (p. 379)

You refer to a seasonal and ecumenical image that was used by a newspaper, the Independent, that included the Three Wise Men of the nativity scene being played by a Sikh, a Muslim, and a Christian as being grotesque because children, through the drama scene, were being encouraged to adopt the theological opinions of their parents. Of course, we have a God-given responsibility to raise children with godly values, not to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to impart such values and principles into their lives. You can mock it but for you to think that you should impart your own godless and atheistic values to your own children is just as prejudicial and certainly more damaging. It serves no purpose for you to denigrate the life path that others choose for themselves or for their children. The enlightenment that you pretend to want to advocate for your children is not really enlightenment but neglect. You want to have no responsibility for imparting values in their lives (or possibly unless they're godless values).

Children & Belief (p. 381)

You write that, “Small children are too young to decide their views on the origins of the cosmos, of life, and of morals. The very sound of the phrase ‘Christian child’ or ‘Muslim child’ should grate like fingernails on a blackboard.”

Firstly, if you understood genuine Christianity you would know that a profession of faith can only really be made by the person involved, not a parent. Until a child makes his or her own personal profession of faith, he or she is not a Christian. Christianity is not attained through osmosis or by heritage or by parental decision. Contrary to your implication, children do not become believers through any action or belief of their parents. The child makes the decision. Notwithstanding all of this, what is truly astounding, however, is that you are implying that it is quite acceptable to have an atheist child, but not one of faith.

In your world, it would appear that one can be a parent, as long as one doesn’t have an opinion, but if one does, one can't express it to one’s own child, unless of course it is consistent with what Professor Dawkins thinks. It all sounds a little like communist China under Chairman Mao, or possibly worse.

Dying, Hope, and Belief (p. 399)

You ask, “Why don’t religious people talk like that (like the abbot) when in the presence of the dying? Could it be that they don’t really believe all that stuff they pretend to believe?”

You are quite correct, Bible-believing Christians should demonstrate a wonderful expectation of the glory of life after physical death, and many rightfully do that. Some don't, however, and that is because it is still part of the unknown, and some don't because they still have regard for their family and friends who will remain here on Earth. Christians, like non-Christians, have mortal bodies and sometimes they live with short-sightedness, with only physical mortality in view. The apostle, Paul, expressed his preference to go to heaven but realized and accepted that there was still much more to do on Earth for Christ when he wrote:

                                                   

            “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).

Historical Con Tricks (p. 401)

You refer to the “greatest con tricks in history” when saying that, “The doctrine of purgatory offers a preposterous revelation of the way the theological mind works... and the Church used to sell indulgences.”

Your comments regarding purgatory, indulgences, (and prayers for the dead) are correct but these are not biblical concepts. The Bible should be our standard in all areas of faith and doctrine. Again, you are confusing religion with genuine Bible-believing faith and it is important to know the difference. The distinction is critical. It serves no useful purpose to mix or confuse the two. Much credibility is lost when you group all religions together as though they have a commonality in important areas which really does not exist.

Summary Comments

Although some of my rebuttal comments may sound harsh, please be assured that no disrespect is intended. Professor Dawkins, you may not believe that there is a God or if there is, He is not One who you would like to know. I can only say that you do not yet know the God of the Bible, the true living God. There was a lengthy period in my life when I didn't know Him either. I came to know Him in a very real and personal way 32 years ago, as a 28 year old, but the more I journey with Him, the more I get to know Him. There is much about Him that will always be a mystery. That, too, is part of who He is but it is also partly because our finite, little brains will never be able to comprehend the full power, glory, and majesty of His Being.

God is a loving God but unfortunately you have apparently not experienced His love in your own life. Another of His most amazing attributes is that of righteousness. Many of us may think that we're very good or even fairly good but He tells us that in comparison “...all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment...” (Isaiah 64:6). His absolute holiness is the reason that we need His righteousness which we can have through His Son. He has also told us through His Word that the penalty for our sin is death (because He is also a God of ultimate and perfect justice). He is righteous and because of that, justice must be served, but the very good news, however, is that because He LOVES us so much, He has chosen to pay the penalty for our sin in full through the death of His own Son who gave His life on the Cross... a perfect sinless sacrifice... the only One worthy. (We couldn't even pay the penalty if we wanted to.)

In reading between the lines of your life story, one of the sad and unfortunate things is that in all your years and in all your life travels, you have apparently never experienced the love of Christ as evidenced through the life of another person.

You share heart wrenching stories about people giving up on their faith but because of your prejudice towards atheism, what you don't see are the millions of lives who, throughout history, have been transformed by the power of Christ and His Spirit. You personally choose to live a life of denial of the supernatural but by doing so you miss a very real part of life. We are not just physical beings; we are spiritual beings. Your background and experience has unfortunately kept you from seeing truly changed lives and it is those lives which are the ultimate proof of a living God dwelling in the lives of believers through His Spirit.

We can come to know God through His Word; we can come to know Him through His Son; we can come to know Him through His Holy Spirit; we can come to see Him in His Universe, but even if we still don't find Him, we can come to know and see Him through the lives of others who have been transformed by His power. When you surround yourself with atheists or God haters, it is still possible to find Jesus but He would prefer not to “crash the party;” He would rather be invited, but amongst atheists only, you will never see firsthand the love that He lives out in His children. That is what and who you really should see and experience. That is the real miracle of what He has to offer each one of us. If you genuinely care about finding and knowing the truth, then you should seek it with earnest and genuineness. Whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, every person on Earth actually has a desire to know the God of the Universe. What I personally know from firsthand experience is that He will graciously honour any heart which genuinely seeks after Him:

‘You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,’ declares the LORD (Jeremiah 29:13).

That is a promise. My hope for you is that you would choose to go on the most exciting journey of your life and find the only true living God, through His Son. I can assure you that you will be greatly rewarded... for all eternity.