How to answer someone like Richard Dawkins who is so absolutely certain tht evolution is a fact and religion is false. I say evolution is not a fact, it's full of holes scientifically , and I say that Christianity is absolutely THE truth that everyone should know whether they believe it or not because it's the only hope for their immortal souls after death.
What does he mean by saying evolution is fact? What proves it? The fossil record? Oh dear, as i said below that is a joke, quite silly when you think through the physical properties of the strata in qhich the fossils are embedded. Radiometric dating? Well, if true it would prove an ancient earth which really isn't proof of evolution as such, and i am not able to prove it wrong but I believe there are scientiest who can show that it is unreliable and shouldn't be trusted as it is anyway.
But I think he may just mean to appropriate some things tht are facts, the obvious variations in living things from generation to generation for instance, but that's not evolution at all. They nevertheless say it is. It's merelyu variation built into the genome of a given species. That species can vary in many ways, but that's not the same thing as changing from that species into another species, which I've argued in my own way is genetically impossible. Genes have two forms which is what allows their expression in the animal to vary as they can be sexually combined in many different ways, especially if there are many genes that govern a particular single trait as I think is the case. But that's not evolution, that's just built in variation and it can happen only within the genome, it can't go beyond the genome.
I thihnk that is all he means. It's what Darwin thought after all. He could get some dramatic variations on the pigeons he bred and the fact he made use of in formulating evolution by natural selection, transferring the selective power from the human decion to circumstances in nature. But even his own experiments came to an end, would reach a point beyond which they couldn't vary further. Surely he noticed that fact. Surely. You can get pigeons with a great range of differences between them but you can't get anything that even remotely begins to look like something other than a pigeon. Same with the finches he stsudied, their great variety of beak sizes and shapes, each suited to the gathering of a particular kind of food which became the identifying characteristic of a finch with a particular beak type. Lots of different beaks, but nothing ever even remotely suggestive of anything other than a finch. Not remotely. Same body plan, as I argue elsewhere.
But he goes on believing these things and imposing them on all of us and doesn't want to take seriously objections made by creationists. And on the other hand he doesn't want religionists to impose their beliefs on anyone because we can't given him satisfactory evidence for what we believe.
what what what what what
I'It's so not a fact and yet they've got themselves convinced.
As for proving the realiy of god to someone like Dawkins, I hiknk i's probably imjpossible. God Himself would have to prove Himself to him, as He does with all of us, there really isn't much anyoof us can say or sdo to make the case otherwise. Wdee can try of course. I can only go to the bible in the end because that is where god reveals Himself in the clearest way, and that is the purpose of the bible. It is God's self-revelation to us. We are fallen, having lost our ability to recognize God , which is a spiritual fuhnction we lost at the Fall, and that abolity beying absent Dawkins can't recognize God hismefl either. But the Bible ws given to persuade us. Many read it and still are not persuaded but the evidence is there nevertheless.
And by the way, no other religion than the religion founded on the bible even makes an effort to prove the reality of God. they assume god, they don't try to prove His existence. The Bibble offers the testimony of hundreds and miracles and a coherent story line, a coherent plan of redemption, it all hangs together, it's all there.
Probably tyhe best I can do.
One thing I like about the bible as evidence is that it knows us so well. "The fool hasth said in his heart, There is no God." Yup, that's what the fool says in his heart all right. And it knows that it is hard for us to believe. "Lord, I believe, help mine unbelief." And it knows that a lot of us "stand in the path of sinners": an "six in the seat of the scoffers" and even glory in our sins. And how about the second half of the Ten Commandments where we are commanded not to mistreat our neightbor. love thy neighbor as thyself. Well that turns out to mean in the simplest terms what the second hafl of the ten commandments tell isus not to do: don't murder or harm your neighbor, don't lie to your neighbor, don't steal from your neighbor, don't commit adultery with your neighbor or his spouse, don't covet his property. We can all recognize those violations against our neighbor. And right now they are particular rampantly violated in the world or so it seems.
Then there is The fear of God is the beginning of widsdom. And maybe that's a more fruitful place to start if you want to try to prove the existence of God. beause it is possible to noti ce, ans the proverbs tells us to notice, that there are consequen es for our sins that come in the form of events that nobody in particular could orchestrate, so have to gcoe from od. And that is a sort of proof of god.If we fear God we will avoid doing the things that would call down his wrath on us. that's wisdom.Proves there is something in the unicverse that acts.
