This is
the second time in succession that you have received a Creation Research
newsletter immediately after a holiday period. Again the reason is to provide
you with information on John Mackay's imminent visit to the UK.
John will be here for most of February and March on a visit timed
to coincide with the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Already
the media has begun to champion Darwin's work in the lead-up to February
12th and it will no doubt continue to do so throughout the year, as November
also sees the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On The Origin of
Species".
Darwin's birthday challenge to atheists
I know
many of you are wanting to know if our search for a prominent atheist
to debate John in Shrewsbury on Feb. 14th has been successful. The answer
is that it has not. Richard Dawkins, as you know, turned down the opportunity
when John personally invited him on the occasion Dawkins interviewed John
in November 2007. Sir David Attenborough, Professor Lewis Wolpert and Professor
Peter Atkins all replied to say that they were not available for a variety
of reasons. Professor Steve Jones, along with the British Humanist Association,
National Secular Society and the Royal Society (to whom we wrote after
the enforced resignation of Professor Michael Reiss following his comment
that teachers should be prepared to discuss creation in the science classroom)
all failed to reply to our invitations. We did get two volunteers from
the wider ranks of atheists, but both were unknown to the general public.
John was willing to debate either of them if they could obtain the backing
of one of the national atheist groups like the BHA or NSS. Admittedly time
was limited for them to obtain this, but neither were successful, so late
in December we decided that John will give a presentation entitled "Was
Darwin Right?" on that evening. [Details here]
A copy
of the leaflet is available from this
page and as you can see, we emphasise Darwin's own words, which were
originally excluded from his autobiography at the request of his wife,
but have now been restored in some editions.
Darwin
wrote, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity
to be true; for if so the plain language of the [Biblical] text seems to
show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father,
Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine." (Nora Barlow edition: The autobiography
of Charles Darwin, with original omissions restored. W.W. Norton, 1969.
P.87)
John Mackay
will examine Darwin's beliefs as a Cambridge theology graduate and how
they shaped his world-view, including his understanding of geology and
biology.
The venue
for this meeting is Shrewsbury Abbey, which seats over 500 people and is
ideally located for such an occasion. The Abbey is one of the oldest buildings
in the city and has undergone many alterations over the years. We are grateful
to the Vicar and the team at the Abbey for allowing us to hire it for the
evening and look forward to it being a successful occasion. (Do arrive
in time - the seats in the side aisles have restricted viewing.) Please
pray that we will be successful in making it known in the local area as
well as to our supporters. There will be much attention focused on Shrewsbury
that week - the local council are saying that "there will be a whole host
of events taking place in Shrewsbury on the 12th February" and we want
as many as possible to be aware that they don't need to pay unquestioning
allegiance to the town's most famous son. If you want more copies of the
enclosed leaflet for your church or elsewhere, please let us know or you
can download a printer ready PDF version from this
page.
Where else will John Mackay be speaking?
As usual
we are including details of John Mackay's itinerary with this UK Update.
This visit will see him speaking in London and the S.E., South Wales and
S.W. England, Scotland from Wick to Dumfries, as well as a small number
of meetings in the north of England. Of particular note will be a three
session conference on Saturday 28th March, in Chesterfield.
John has recently put together a "world-view seminar" with the theme of
"Take off Darwin's glasses and start seeing the world God's way and
this will be the first time he has presented it in the UK. The three sessions
have the themes of, "Letting the mind of Christ be in you" - Philippians
2:5, "Having a reason for what you believe" - 1 Peter 3:15 and "Loving
God with your heart, mind and soul"- Matthew 22:37. These are important
themes and we encourage anyone within travelling distance of Chesterfield
to think about making this a seminar a priority in their diary.
John has
also informed me recently that he will be visiting the UK again in November
this year. As yet I have not had much time to work on that itinerary, but
will be doing so as soon as possible. In the meantime, if you would like
John to speak in your area in the future, please do contact us and we will
add your details to our list of invitations.
News from last year
The
last part of 2008 was a very busy period for us. John Mackay was here for
most of September and October, and his colleague Dr. Diane Eager joined
him part way through October and stayed until the end of November. We were
all encouraged by news of people being converted through John's ministry
during previous visits as well as this one. There can be no doubt that
evolution is a stronghold which has been raised up against the knowledge
of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-6) and it is encouraging when we hear of people
putting their faith in Jesus Christ once its influence has been dismantled
in their lives. It is also encouraging to hear of Christians whose confidence
in their Creator has been strengthened as a result of our ministry. John
spoke in places as far apart as Southampton and Bishop Auckland, as well
as his first ever visit to Northern Ireland. The latter went very well
except for an aggressive interview on BBC Radio Ulster, following a visit
to a local school. However, it was good to read later on one of the BBC's
own discussion boards of several of the pupils from the school criticising
the "biased representation that the BBC Talk Back [programme] portrayed"
and saying how much they had enjoyed John's talk. It is no surprise to
us that the BBC is biased whenever it reports the debate over creation
and evolution, but on this occasion David Dunseith, the presenter, proved
far more hostile than the majority of his colleagues. Whilst Diane Eager
was here she spoke at meetings in Scotland and London, to a group of home
educating families in Reading and I joined her in speaking at short notice
for a church in Swindon.
Between writing our previous newsletter and sending it out,
John was featured in an episode of "The Genius of Charles Darwin"
presented by Richard Dawkins on Channel 4. [Comment & photos here]
This was the last of three episodes and was broadcast on Monday 18th August,
with the 3½ minute segment put together from an interview recorded
before the meeting in November 2007 mentioned above. It also included excerpts
of the first part of the same meeting. The producers of programmes like
this have a great amount of freedom to use the material gathered in any
way they wish - that is part of the risk anyone takes when agreeing to
be interviewed. Whilst no doubt Dawkins hoped that John telling his audience
that "kill and be killed; survival of the fittest; nature red in tooth
and claw" did not have any part in The LORD's world when it was created
'very good' would sound ridiculous to the viewers, it is encouraging to
know that many people have now been made aware of this simple but important
truth. They also now know that when they die, it will not because they
get old, but because they are sinners. Death is not natural, whether it
occurs peacefully in old age or violently at the claws of a vicious predator.
Death in every form is the direct result of human rebellion against God.
It is our fault and we cannot blame Him or, as Dawkins does, use it as
an excuse to deny His existence.
After meeting Dawkins, John Mackay commented that the
Professor "was not good at thinking on his feet" so perhaps we should take
more notice of his subsequent response to the interview in his unopposed
and scripted right of reply in the final part of the segment. He started
by saying, "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself
is absurd." He then went on to justify his claim by saying that he
himself had never seen Napoleon, nor could John see a cell or an atom or
a weather system on the other side of the world. He seemingly has not heard
of microscopes nor of international travel, but that is too silly to pursue.
Have Christians not been telling him and other atheists for years that
their unbelief is absurd? Do we need to point out the obvious? Dawkins
and his fellow unbelievers refuse to believe in their Creator because they
cannot see Him. However they insist that we are the fools for believing
in Him Whom we cannot see. We call that faith - though it is based
on facts - whilst Dawkins calls what he does not see science. With
logic like his, it is easy to understand why he is unwilling to debate
John.
The whole wonderful endeavour of science...
It was
also obvious that Dawkins did not like the implications of having to acknowledge
that evolution is unobserved and it is a wonder that he allowed the producers
to include it. John made it clear that, "What you don't see happening is
not science." He also responded to Dawkins' defence of why the unobserved
is science by stressing that his arguments actually show that Dawkins holds
"a faith position", which he needed to admit. John then added that
Dawkins needed to "call what you are teaching 'philosophy' or 'atheism'
if you are really going to be honest." The end of Dawkins' considered response
to this argument was just as confused as its beginning. However we have
been amazed at the number of emails we have received supporting his argument
that science is about things which cannot be observed. Dawkins said, "Mackay,
it seems to me, misunderstands science at a deep level: science is precisely
not limited by what we can see with our own eyes in one lifetime. The whole
wonderful endeavour of science is to investigate phenomena beyond
human experience - from far off galaxies to microscopic bacteria."
This is
a claim which does not make sense, for to be able to investigate anything
in the physical universe requires it to be within human experience.
We cannot investigate material things without being aware in some measure
of their existence - where would we start our investigations if we did
not know or experience their presence in one way or another? (Even the
search for dark matter has been prompted by things we observe, but cannot
explain.) Looking at Dawkins' two 'book-end' examples, far off galaxies
and microscopic bacteria, we see that these both lie within human experience.
Bacteria have been part of our experience throughout history. The difference
in recent years is that we have been able to identify them and discover
more about them because we improved the optics in microscopes. Now we have
invented electron-microscopes and discovered even more about them. At the
other end of the scale, the grinding of smoother optics helped us to get
clearer views of distant galaxies, and radio telescopes have given us further
insights. Whilst our recent understanding of them has grown, we have been
aware of galaxies for millennia, as many are part of the night sky at which
mankind has always gazed up at in wonder.
Dawkins'
earlier examples were similarly confused. His reference to Napoleon illustrates
his own misunderstanding of science. Since the time of Charles Lyell, it
has become increasingly popular to give science the upper hand over history.
This is probably because Lyell's own agenda was 'to free science from Moses'
and he attempted this through 'a historical sketch'. Napoleon's existence
is not a scientific matter at all, but a historical fact which is established
through testimony, not by experiment. Without human records there is no
experiment we could devise to establish the story of Napoleon's life. We
have confidence in the accuracy of the historical records as distinct from
scientific research, because empirical science has nothing to offer in
verifying past events since it operates in the present. Forensic science
which investigates recent events only works because it employs tests which
can be repeated and give consistent results in the present.
John Mackay
did not challenge Richard Dawkins to believe in something he could
not see; he challenged him not to call that which has not been observed
'science'. Richard Dawkins agreed with John Mackay that we have no observed
examples of evolution upon which to build the theory. This is exactly what
he said to Bill Moyers on a PBS (Public Broadcasting Service in the USA)
broadcast on Dec. 3rd 2004. Moyers asked "Is evolution a theory, not
a fact?" and Dawkins replied: "Evolution has been observed. It's
just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." [Full
interview here]
Evolution is a process, but it is not change.
Evolution
is a process which requires changes to living things. It is not a discrete
thing like an atom (visible or invisible - but detectable) and evolution
is not just a force or an energy. Evolution involves living things which
are both micro and macroscopic, and the theory claims that the micro has
evolved into the macro over billions of years. For such a process to be
claimed as scientific, it must be observed happening at both levels. However
as we have said, historical events cannot be investigated by modern science.
Their traces, their effects, their records can be examined, but the actual
events themselves are beyond empirical research. If evolution is truly
science, then its processes must be both observable and testable today.
Prof. Steve Jones (University College, London) recently acknowledged that
there is no evidence of evolution taking place today in humans. Human evolution
is therefore a matter of conjecture, not evidence. Similarly, evolution
in its broader concept is nothing more than a framework into which living
and dead creatures are arranged in a neat diagram of succession, but this
is not evidence and it is not science - it is a world-view imposed on the
data and accepted by faith.
Many evolutionists
have been confused by the misrepresentation of evolution as the process
of change. This is a major misunderstanding today and it showed up on several
occasions when John took questions at the end of meetings during his recent
visit. Any observed change in living creatures is unthinkingly defined
as evolution. Christians can be just as guilty, often describing small
changes as 'micro-evolution'. The word evolution means to 'roll out' and
in its modern context it implies an improvement - for if creatures did
not improve, they would be less equipped to survive in an increasingly
competitive environment. There is no doubt that since creation most plants,
animals and even humans, have undergone biological change. The question
is, are the changes we have been able to observe evolutionary, in that
they improve the creature, or are they degenerative either as the result
of environmental pressures or through a fault in genetic processes?
A farmer
recently told me that higher milk yields from his cows was an example of
a beneficial mutation, but then he realised if he were not there to tend
the herd, they would all develop mastitis very quickly indeed. The BBC's
decision in August to stop televising Crufts, the world's largest dog show,
reminds us that pedigree breeds are the result of inbreeding of essentially
damaging mutations over many generations. Mark Evans, head vet with the
RSPCA, described the event as "a parade of mutants" adding that many of
the dogs were "deformed, disabled, disease-prone animals". Prof. Steve
Jones, who believes that random chance mutations have made inert chemicals
into man, told the Daily
Telegraph that if dog breeders did not restrain themselves "there is
a universe of suffering waiting for many of these breeds and many, if not
most, will not survive." Change just because it is change, as these examples
illustrate, is not evolution. In fact, it is commonly degeneration which
is the very opposite of evolution, but it is what we expect from the Biblical
record of a very good universe having been (and still being) spoilt by
human rebellion against our Creator.
For evolution
to be observed, there needs to be witnessed a succession of real not imagined
generational changes which improve a creature rather than damage it. In
the absence of such evidence, evolution cannot qualify as a scientific
matter, though it is normally portrayed as if it were. Richard Dawkins
repeatedly makes clear that evolution's popularity has to do not with its
scientific value, but with its religious implications, for it suits him
to be an atheist. This was true for Charles Darwin too, for he saw his
theory as a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He was prepared to
do this because he did not like the implications of Christ's ministry.
As quoted above, he believed that the Gospel was "a damnable doctrine"
for it condemned his "Father, Brother and almost all my best friends" to
an eternity in hell. That is also why Richard Dawkins believes in what
he cannot observe nor study with empirical science.
Be Prepared
There can be no doubt that the coming
year will see the media around the world giving a lot of coverage to Darwin
and his work. Seven years ago Christians who believed in creation were
afforded little attention by the wider world. Since then there has been
an ongoing campaign by secularists in the UK to undermine Christianity,
and creation in particular. In many ways this has been focussed on the
teaching of creation in schools, but that is not their full agenda. However,
two things are worth noting as the consequences of their efforts. First,
Biblical creation has a much higher profile than it used to have, with
Christian creationists being asked to appear on radio programmes, etc.
more frequently than ever before. In 2006 it was the efforts of evolutionists
who wanted to undermine our ministry that opened the doors to the national
and international media for John Mackay. Please pray for those Christians
who get the opportunity to speak with the media over the coming year of
Darwinian celebrations, that they will have wisdom and that they will make
the most of the opportunity to declare Jesus Christ as both Creator and
Redeemer.
The other point worth making is that whilst it is true that
many teachers are now more careful about inviting Christian creationists
into schools, the secular campaigners have failed to convince teachers
that evolution is science whilst creation is faith. In the last half of
2008 three surveys of teachers and schools were published, all of which
asked questions at some point about the teaching of creation in schools.
The BBC
reported on a survey for the Times Educational Supplement in which 65%
of 628 teachers interviewed said that schools should be allowed to teach
creationism. In November, Teachers TV published a survey of 1,200 teachers
which was widely reported [Daily
Telegraph]. The results showed that one in three teachers believes
schoolchildren should be taught that creationism is just as valid as evolution.
Finally, in December an Ipsos/Mori Poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers,
reported that 29% of science specialists agreed with the statement: "Alongside
the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be
taught in science lessons" [The
Guardian]. These repeated surveys may remind you of the European Union
asking countries to keep holding referenda until they return the required
answer. Clearly, secularists like Dawkins are failing in their efforts
to turn state schools into wholly atheist academies. However, this last
survey did precipitate a response from him, describing the results as "a
national disgrace" and calling for "urgent remedial action in the education
of science teachers." [The
Guardian] Having held the Professorship of the Public Understanding
of Science at Oxford for thirteen years, perhaps he should be asking himself
if he did a good job!
We fully expect the secular media worldwide to continue
their admiration of Darwin throughout 2009 and we encourage individual
Christians and churches to be prepared to respond with informed arguments.
Many evangelicals believe it is possible to make the Bible fit into a Darwinian
world-view, but seemingly fail to appreciate that Darwin's dissent from
the Gospel was the real cause of his dislike of Genesis. Perhaps they -
and the Church of England, which recently apologised to Darwin - need to
remember that his objection to a Creator was the fact that men and women
are responsible to that Creator for how they behave on the earth! In order
to help Christians to be prepared to answer questions in this area, many
creation ministries have been preparing new material for 2009. Some of
you know that we have been working with Answers in Genesis UK in producing
two DVDs. Over the last year John has given a lot of time to filming and
editing material for our part of the project, which, God willing, will
be complete by the time you read this. The DVD is to be called "Darwin
on the Rocks" and John is intending it to be available for his coming
visit. AiG's DVD, "200 Lost Years: Darwin & Darwinism" is presented
by Paul Taylor. If you wish to order a copy of either, please use the this
order form.
Your support is appreciated
Can I close
by thanking those of you who have supported John's ministry in many and
various ways over the past year and longer. All of us at Creation Research
really value your on-going involvement with us. We know that many of you
pray regularly for us and we ask you to continue to do so, especially this
year. Pray for all John's meetings in February & March, though we ask
you to remember especially the Shrewsbury meeting. Pray that non-Christians
will attend for whatever reason and that the Holy Spirit will convict them
of the truth. Pray too for those who over the years have repented and placed
their faith in Jesus Christ as a result of hearing John. It was a joy recently
to talk with one young man who was prepared for the Gospel some time ago
by attending a weekend seminar with John and now to hear of his plans to
go into full-time work with a missionary group. We also appreciate those
of you who support us financially. Since we formed the Creation Research
Trust in 2004, giving to it has grown year by year. For those who are UK
tax payers, Gift Aided donations increase the amount of your gift significantly,
as do any gifts through the Government's 'Payroll Giving' scheme. (For
those who would like to know more about the Trust and how to support Creation
Research through it, please see its web
page.)
Please continue
to praise The LORD with us for His eternal faithfulness and mercy. Please
continue to pray that we might be faithful in preaching Jesus Christ Creator,
Sustainer, Redeemer, Lord and Judge to a world where the majority do not
want to give Him the honour which is due to His name.
Randall Hardy