It occurs to me that my little girl, Charis (ouldjr) is going to be influenced by every single thing that comes her way. At the moment we’re singing to her, and one of our favourites is “Jesus loves me, this I know”.
Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Little ones to him belong
We are weak, but He is strong.
But there are some around that think that sort of thing is wrong, in fact they think that my relationship with my daughter should be empty of any mention of God whatsoever and, even, that I don’t understand the relationship myself. I’m talking about people like Richard Dawkins, writer of books such as “The Selfish Gene”
If Dawkins had his way then I’d be singing more along the lines of…
Papa loves me, this I know
For I hold his chromosomes.
He will watch me as I play
Just to guard his DNA.
Is it me, or has Dawkins missed the point entirely?
Dawkins has missed the point entirely. What makes me more irritated by him is that he actually hinders the cause of science and education by associating his brand of radical atheism with Biological Evolution.
He is as guilty of perverting the science to his religious views as Duane Gish or Ken Ham.
I once had the pleasure of conversing with Eugenie Scott, when she visited my school for a lecture, and popped by the anthropology lounge to hang out (seriously). she was talking about how religion and science don’t really conflict, and someone brought up Dawkins. She said, “I disagree with Richard very strongly on this matter, and I have told him so.”
Man, I thought that was funny. “Richard.” She knows him, and still thinks he’s a dweeb. And I think she’s a self-described agnostic.
Cheers,
– Joseph