In many of our mailings (and on parts of this Web site), we encourage AiG supporters to send us their prayer requests. Each one is prayed over by one of the AiG staff worldwide.
As might be expected in a ministry that challenges society (especially Western nations) to get back to the authority of the Bible, we encounter hostility and mocking. That was the case recently when a mocking “prayer request” was sent to the UK office of AiG. The new head of that growing ministry, Dr Monty White, decided to respond to the blasphemous e-mailer, in the hope that the truth of the Bible would penetrate his young atheistic heart.
Here is the original e-mail (we are hiding the identity of this person):
“Hello, you stupid religious nutters; here is my prayer request to that non-existant [sic] thing you worship: god.
“Lord, please help stupid people to see you don’t exist, and also to stop banging on about their creation theory. It is so ridiculous, I do sometimes laugh at them. Im [sic] 13…all my friends have accepted the truth of evolution. And may I add, Jesus was either a conman who persuaded his disciples to write those lies in the bible…or he was insane… Amen.”
Normally, we would not bother to reply to such an e-mail. But because this “prayer” was sent by a young person, Dr White believed that there might be the hope that he/she was not as hardened in the heart as an older person might be. (See Hebrews:3:7–13) Below, Dr White outlines the reasons why he and other scientists reject the evolutionary account of origins and why he believes that the evidence that is often used to support evolution can be used instead to uphold the view that there is a Creator God.
Your email has been sent to me for a response.
One of the allegations that you make in your so-called prayer is that people like me who believe in creation are stupid. Allow me to tell you about my academic qualifications so that you can decide if such an allegation really does apply to me.
My background is that I hold an honours degree in Chemistry awarded by the University of Wales. While studying for this degree, I also studied Geology up to pass degree level. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry (also from Wales) studying under Sir Aubrey Trotman-Dickenson, who was, until his retirement, the longest serving Vice-Chancellor in the UK.
After obtaining a Ph.D., I then completed a postdoctoral research programme under the direction of Professor Sir John Thomas, who eventually became the Director of the Royal Institution before taking up his appointment as a Master of one of the Colleges at Cambridge. After completing my postdoctoral programme, I joined the Administration at Cardiff University and held a number of senior positions there. …
You also state in your so-called prayer that all your friends believe in evolution. Have they (or you) really studied the so-called evidence for evolution, or have they (and you) just accepted uncritically what you have been taught in school?
In 1999, New Holland Publishers published a book entitled “In Six Days” in which 50 scientists, all with earned doctorates (that is, Ph.Ds), gave their reasons why they believe that God created the world in six literal days. These scientists are serious-minded thinking people who have given a lot of thought to what they believe about origins. They have not lightly brushed aside the evolutionary account of origins, but have carefully weighed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that creation is a more rational explanation of origins than evolution.
This book caused quite a stir in Australia where it was first published and its editor, Dr John Ashton, was interviewed a number of times on the radio and on TV; also the book was serialised in one of the national Sunday papers. You ought to read this book before accusing anyone who believes in creation of being stupid.
Are you aware of the serious debate that is going on in scientific circles about origins and whether the evolutionary account is correct or not? Some secular scientists (e.g. Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe) realise that it is scientifically impossible for the genetic information of even the simplest self-reproducing single-cell organisms to have been generated from non-living chemicals by chance natural processes. They are on record as saying that the chances of life arising from a primordial soup by chance is the same as that of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747 jumbo jet! Neo-Darwinian evolution (i.e. mutation plus natural selection) cannot be invoked, because natural selection (really differential reproduction) presupposes that self-reproducing entities already exist.
It is accepted (by both evolutionists and creationists) that one kind of organism can give rise to different varieties, by sorting out previously existing genetic information by splitting populations, and by natural selection eliminating information that is unfit in a certain environment. But this process cannot account for the origin of this genetic information or indeed for the addition of new genetic information to that gene pool.
Other scientists (e.g. the biochemist Professor Dr Michael Behe [in the book Darwin’s Black Box] realise that there are organs and processes in living systems that can only be described as “irreducibly complex.” Some examples are the amazing photo-electrical chemistry of the eye, blood clotting with a “cascade” of vital reactions, the immune system and cellular transport machinery.
Dr Behe likens such organs and processes to a mousetrap—all the parts are useless by themselves yet when put together, the resulting construction works perfectly. There is no purpose in any of the parts by themselves, so there would be no selective advantage for organisms possessing these partly formed structures, so the neo-Darwinian processes could not build up the complete organisms little by little. Darwin, himself, agreed that his theory would be refuted if any structure could be found that could not be built up gradually, but Behe and others have provided countless examples.
Many of the arguments that are currently taught to favour evolution have been discredited. For example, vestigial organs are now known to be called such because of the biologists’ ignorance of the functions of the various glands and organs. The appendix and the coccyx, for example, are now known to have function and therefore cannot be called ‘vestigial’ [see Q&A: “Vestigial” organs, which includes so-called ‘junk’ DNA]. Embryonic recapitulation is known to occur only in drawings—it is well known that Professor Haeckel, who first proposed this idea, falsified his drawings and recently it has been shown that even drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity were forged by Haeckel. [See Something Fishy About Gill Slits! and Developing Deception]
Even more recently, it has been shown that the photographs of the light and dark peppered moths, supposedly one of the best ‘proofs’ of evolution, were faked by gluing the moths to the bark of the trees. They never rest on bark in real life but live high up in the trees among the leaves.
Many of the arguments for evolution, such as comparative anatomy and genetic similarity, can be used as powerful arguments in favour of creation. In brief, comparative anatomy among the mammals, for example, shows that God used a blueprint and varied his blueprint for the different kinds of mammals that He created. The universality of the genetic code is another example of what you would expect if a Creator God created all the plants and animals. If there were no similarities, then it might look like many gods instead of One. However, some of these similarities are coded (and developed) in completely different ways, defying evolution predictions.
In conclusion, I would implore you to look at the evidence before you make such totally unfounded allegations about those who reject evolution and believe in creation.
I am yours sincerely, Dr A.J. Monty White, Chief Executive, AiG (UK)
Editor’s note: The mocking/blasphemous e-mail was indeed a kind of a call to prayer in itself—a call to Christians to pray for this 13-year-old student to heed the e-mail from Dr White. AiG staff around the world are often involved in responding to the heart-cry of genuine seekers, as well as answering questions and challenges from outright skeptics (though we need to judiciously “draw the line” sometimes as stewards of the Lord’s time entrusted to us). Please pray for wisdom and ongoing support in this “front-line” battle that rages day by day.