Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, evolution’s most famous evangelist, wrote this over 25 years ago:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
(Richard Dawkins, “Book Review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprints,” The New York Times, April 9, 1989.)
To begin, let me vigorously assert as strongly as possible,
“I do NOT believe in evolution.”
Therefore, according to Dawkins, this assertion puts me in one of four categories: Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked.
No one who knows me would consider me ignorant, stupid, or insane. Therefore, according to Dawkins, I must be wicked.
Dawkins is essentially saying that knowledge is a moral issue. Dawkins assumes and believes that Evolution is the truth. He therefore concludes that someone with the mental capability to understand the truth and yet who denies the truth is wicked.
On this point I agree with Dawkins: knowledge is a moral issue and denying the truth is wicked.
Dawkins and I both say that denying the truth is immoral. Therefore, the important question is: Which is the truth? Evolution or Creation?
Which is the Truth?
Dawkins says it is Evolution. I say it is Creation. Who is right?
For support of Evolution, Dawkins appeals to authorities like Charles Darwin.
For support of Creation, I will appeal to a couple of the smartest people who ever lived, King Solomon and the Apostle Paul, men whom the Creator used to deliver truth to mankind.
About 3,000 years ago King Solomon of Israel said,
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
Solomon, himself a scientist and the wisest man who ever lived (1 Kings 3:12; 4:29-34), said that knowledge begins with fear of the Lord. That is, one has to respect and revere the Creator in order to truly understand anything. To deny the Creator is to be a fool.
Without Excuse
The Apostle Paul spoke clearly to this issue some 2,000 years ago. He used unambiguous moral language about those who reject the Creator. He said,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. … For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. (Romans 1:18-22, 25)
Paul certainly saw knowledge of the truth as a moral issue. He says men have no excuse because the Creator’s attributes have been clearly seen through what He has made. According to the Apostle Paul, all evolutionists know there is a Creator God of great power and glory. When they deny it, they are intentionally suppressing the truth in wickedness.
Paul does not allow “deceived” as an option. It is immoral and wicked to deny the truth.
Thus to express my position, I would modify what Dawkins wrote and say,
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims to believe in evolution and denies the Creator, that person is ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, and the last choice is the most likely.”
So, to answer the question of the title, YES, denying Creation is wicked. Belief in Evolution is wicked. Allegiance to the Creator is the first duty of every human being.
Questions to Ponder
- If you sat beside Richard Dawkins on a plane, what would you say to him?
- In what specific ways does our evolution-loving culture “worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator“?
Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click SUBSCRIBE NOW!
©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
“for the defense of the gospel”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:5; Phil 1:16)
Wednesday November 30, 2016 A.D.
That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)
Bible-Science Guy 
BSG – In some sense knowledge IS an ethical issue. When you look at straight forward facts – and then, in their very face, deny them…. That is an ethical issue.
I clearly showed not one but two clear errors in the Bible – but you simply chose to reject them – not because of the facts – but because of a pre-conceived ideology that superseded facts. That is an ethical issue. God is the God of facts – not of pre-conceived ideology. While I respect your intent – I cannot respect your application – I believe it is immoral – and, frankly, with respect, a sin to deny clear facts.
Sincerely
Greg Logan
LikeLike
By: Greg Logan on November 30, 2016
at 8:00 am
Greg, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with you that denying truth is sin. I disagree, however, that you showed two clear errors in the Bible. One interpretation of the facts (which assumes Western time sequence in a record of events) results in an error; another interpretation using a time flashback results in no error. Because I believe the Bible is the Word of the Almighty Creator and therefore error-free in its original documents, I choose the “no-error” interpretation. One’s worldview or philosophical starting point always determines one’s interpretation of facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By: BibleScienceGuy on November 30, 2016
at 8:41 am
Dawkins, by God’s definition, is a fool (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).
LikeLike
By: Ernesto E. Carrasco, M.C.Ed. on November 30, 2016
at 10:58 am
…or whoever the author of the Pslam was… We have no idea what the Bible was the Jesus used… nor entirely what was in it – nor entirely His real perspective – only that which is written about Him. We know it was NOT our modern day version in its entirety.
Many people are fools… May God help us be real with the text that we do have to avoid such a state.
LikeLike
By: Greg Logan on November 30, 2016
at 8:38 pm
It’s hard to know what I would say to Mr. Dawkins if I had the chance, because I hope that the Holy Spirit would guide me to say something much better and more thought-provoking with anything I could come up with on my own. However, if i were totally in charge of the conversation, i might ask Mr. Dawkins about the origins of his deep hurt and distrust of the Creator, then just sit back listening while quietly praying for him. Or, another tack might be to tell him about my many daydreams of revisiting the Garden of Eden (not hard to do since I do daydream of it daily) or my special requests for God to provide me a special harp in heaven made from two solid (none of this glued-up business) slabs of emerald and amethyst, and my dream of having a talking white tiger as a friend in heaven: one smart enough to enjoy a tea party with me, strong enough to ride (like a horse) but also smart enough not to let me lose at chess (though I hardly know how to win at chess). I would be tempted to babble on about the beauty of creation and the many lovely things God puts in our world on a daily basis. Although this probably wouldn’t change the man’s mind. We all believe what we want to believe and it takes a lot to change that basic desire.
But this was a lovely article: well-written, respectful, and believable to those who have a mind to accept truth.
LikeLike
By: "Gwennon R" on November 30, 2016
at 7:52 pm
Gwennon R
Have you considered the possibility that Dawkins has NO “deep hurt” but has simply rationally considered the evidence and formed his particular conclusion???
I asserted the man Christ Jesus to an AG pastor – and he assumed I had been “hurt”. A silly response – I told him I simply read the Bible….
LikeLike
By: Greg Logan on November 30, 2016
at 10:21 pm
The hypothesis that Dawkins has “simply rationally considered the evidence and formed his particular conclusion” is not correct!
How do I know this? It’s based on Romans 1:18-25. The Apostle Paul says that men have no excuse because the Creator’s attributes have been clearly seen through what He has made. According to Paul, Dawkins knows there is a Creator God of great power and glory. When he denies it, he is intentionally suppressing the truth in wickedness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By: BibleScienceGuy on December 1, 2016
at 2:47 pm
Is it not that first there had to come something into being, i.e. coming into creation, before it can be and evolve? So without creation there can be no evolution, is it not?
LikeLike
By: Vragensteller - Inquirer on December 1, 2016
at 3:14 am