The High Priest of Evolution

Richard Dawkins is a high priest worshipping at the feet of Charles Darwin.

Dawkins, who seems in his recent post to be more of a liberal hack than a scientist, took a question on the proper role of evolution in education and used it to attack all of the “uneducated fools” who question the theory of evolution. He finds people like us, “in every country and every period of history,” and warns “we are not unknown in higher offices.” Dawkins and his contemporaries are trying to beat religion at what religion does best, conversion.

Option 1: There is no God; your life is relatively meaningless; pain and suffering is the norm; then you die (Dawkins).

Option 2: God loves you; every single part of your life is meaningful; pain and suffering is temporary; there is a path to eternal life (Christianity and other faiths).

It doesn’t take a degree from Oxford to figure out why “Option 2” is more appealing to mankind.

While Dawkins continues his crusade against God and the faithful, his hard work (targeting religious people) and fame have accomplished nothing of significance. A recent Gallup poll found that 92 percent of Americans believe in God. That’s right Mr. Dawkins, 92 percent of the citizens of the most powerful country in the world reject the atheism that lies at the heart of your Darwinian worldview.

To make matters worse for Dawkins, only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution (and that includes religious people who see no conflict with evolution - the kind that doesn’t require rejection of a creator - and their faith).

Dawkins’s whole post is an attack on conservative Republicans. He writes:

“In today’s Republican party . . . Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone qualified for the job.”

That short diatribe by an elitist Brit underscores the importance of America’s victory in the Revolutionary War. Although Dawkins despises 76 percent of Americans because they are Christians, he shares King George III’s disdain for the ordinary citizen, and declares that, “there is surely something wrong with a system of choosing a leader when,” the “uneducated fools” choose an “uneducated ignoramus” as their Commander in Chief.

I’ll close with a Twitter reply I received from a good friend commenting on Dawkins’ blog:

@donny_anderson wrote: @JordanSekulow Switch “Darwin’s Idea” with “The Bible” in Dawkins’ penultimate paragraph. Dawkins worships Darwin as if he were divine.

Let’s try it.

The simplicity of [the Bible], then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.

The irony is that this elitist, who generally refuses to debate Christian theologians, is really the world’s most loyal devotee of “The Church of Evolution.” The praised intellectual serves on the Honorary Board of the “Freedom From Religion Foundation,” a group that sells “Bible Warning Labels” to pay for lawsuits against the Pledge of Allegiance, National Motto, National Day of Prayer, and churches.

Is Dawkins’s Darwin worship really about religion or politics?

This article is crossposted at Jordan's Washington Post On Faith blog.  Please keep the conversation going by registering to comment on the Washington Post site to give your response to Dawkins' attack on people of faith.