In a post I made in June of last year, a reader, Todd and I have been debating creation myths and scientific proofs. https://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/greg-koukl-christian-workshops-on-new-atheist-fallacies/#comment-2251

In the chat thread, Todd posted a link to www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com, which is worth watching both as a primer to this topic as it is in follow-up to much of what’s been discussed here many times before.



I thought Lennox was a thoroughly entertaining person who certainly made Dawkins work for his answers—but I’m amazed to find that, yet again, he was allowed to make factual statements against unfalsifiable suppositions, such as “we know that God is..”, or “the bible tells us that..” and so on—and without any obvious embarrassment, which is curious for someone who is clearly, otherwise, very well read and well versed in the scientific method.

Lennox, while I wouldn’t put him in the same league as many creationist I’ve heard, is nevertheless very firmly in denial about compelling, though incomplete, emerging anthropological evidence which suggests, not least because of the findings within the dead sea scrolls, that the bible simply can not be considered reliable as a historical document, having had so much of the original text destroyed or ruthlessly altered, hundreds of years after the death of its original architects.

Overall, though, it was nice to finally see a creationist who understands the problem of superimposing irrational blind faith upon logical analyses—even though he hasn’t yet realised he’s on the wrong side of the fallacy. This is no-doubt thanks in large part to what he has seen in his work in communist countries, which has clouded his judgement; that atheism of one form is atheism of all kinds. The atheism I have arrived upon at my own free will, is rather different to the dogmatic evils forced upon a people by megalomaniacal despotism.

Richard Dawkins doesn’t need me to defend him. I thought his retort on the bible just so happening to get a 50 / 50 question about point zero origins right, in its opening pages, was a brilliant reminder of why he is who he is—and an observation which even Lennox seemed forced to admit was one he’d been rather cheeky in trying to get away with—although I did want to leap into the debate at this point and remind both of them of the “is was and always will be” childishly obvious contradiction of later chapters in that same “infallible” book, is a greater reason still to question it’s authenticity, much less its worth as a launch-pad into any serious scientific discovery.