I’ve previously mentioned how the media give Richard Dawkins a dream run, never questioning or probing his assertions about evolution. They just lap it up. Seems like ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) is falling in line with the long tradition—making sure that the champion fighter against ignorance and creationism is not asked any difficult questions on the science of evolution.
I watched the video of the ABC QandA tonight.
The first question was “Is it possible to believe in God and in evolution?” The discussion did not define what was meant by evolution nor did it define what it meant by God. So it was a muddy question, muddy discussion and it was no clearer at the end of the discussion than before.
Another question discussed the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ in the science classroom. No one mentioned that Richard Dawkins is on record saying that there could be clues within the cell itself to indicate it may have been designed. The context of his statement was that aliens could have seeded life onto Earth.
It is a pity that no one was able or inclined to ask Dawkins any probing questions about the science of evolution and hold his feet to the fire on the huge problems with the scientific arguments. It is not as if the information is hard to find. Just visit Creation.com Q&A for academic articles on thousands of issues. But, ABC QandA basically gave Dawkins a free ride.
Right through the program Dawkins had Christians in his sights. He attacked God, he attacked the Old Testament, he attacked the New Testament, he attacked Christ, he attacked Christ’s sacrifice and he attacked his resurrection. And when he was pulled up by one of the panelists for being offensive, Dawkins showed no remorse, no apology but simply sought to thrust the insult even stronger, which he did by ridicule, misrepresentation and scorn. And the audience loved him and applauded him for it.
Perhaps it is against ABC policy to have someone who can take the fight on science to their champ on any of their shows. Perhaps it is against their policy to have anyone on their shows who can defend the Christian faith against such abuse and insult. Judging by the way the discussion went and the applause of the audience Christians were misrepresented and shown in a very bad light. You must give it to the ABC, they are very skilled in advancing their secular agenda.
Richard must be really enjoying the free ride he’s being given in Oz.
Mary M. Jennings
Yes, after the show I was quite disturbed. Not by the ungracious, smug and arrogant attitude of Dawkins but of the inability of the 3 ‘Christian politicians’ to articulate their faith. No wonder God-haters scorn Christians who when trying to save face with secular science don’t have answers because of their compromising stand. I thought Q & A really highlighted the warning that ministries such as yours has been warning for years. Once liberalism and evolution (ape to man) make inroads into the Christian belief system what goes is the authority of God’s Word and the clear exposition of the good news in Christ.
Daniel
Unfortunately I was more impressed with Dawkins’ willingness to openly state his controversial beliefs than with Fielding’s pathetic politician’s answers. So disappointing. Why couldn’t anyone pull Dawkins up on his blatant logical fallacies? He hasn’t heard of an atheist who has said “because I’m an atheist I will kill someone”? Does he watch the news? Belief in evolution is the biggest rationalisation for murder.
I know the ABC will never put an informed, Phd creationist on any panel to give straight reasoned answers, but I am still very disappointed that Steve couldn’t give a simple yes to the simple question
Matt Antill
I agree that the Christians on the panel were perhaps not representing the staunch non believers of creationisn. In fact more than one (christian ?) person agreed that creationism and belief in God at the same time is acceptable to their faith. A pity someone like yourself wasn’t there to present the extreme believers case. Dawkins showed great weakness in his lack of ability to keep emotive effect away from his argument, and had he not ridiculed and taunted Christians his logical arguments would have been far more credible.
Luke
Why don’t they teach creationism in schools why did an american court rule that it can’t be taught ? Because the evidence isn’t there! Pell said he believes in evolution and that the Adam and eve story isn’t literal. What parts of the bible are literal then?
Tas Walker responds:
Hi Luke, The court decision in the US was not based on scientific evidence. Presenting the other side to evolution was barred from schools because it was deemed to be religious. But, of course, evolution is a religious position too, so there is a double standard at work—an unfair decision.
Contrary to Pell, theological president Albert Mohler says Adam and Eve were real. So who are you going to believe? You will have to do your own research and thinking. A good place to start is with the Bible. Use a modern translation and read it for yourself.