Episode 129

Richard Dawkins is one of the most famous atheists in the world. He recently sat with Piers Morgan to discuss big questions like the origin of life, God, and what happens after death. Has Dawkins’ views softened or changed over time? Can someone marginally religious like Morgan effectively challenge Dawkins’ atheism? In this episode of the Removing Barriers Podcast, we react to this interview and hold their positions up to scripture, the only true arbiter of truth.

[Dawkins]

I despise people who believe something without evidence and then go out and take action which damages other people.

[Jay]

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. And we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 129 of the removing barriers podcast. And in this episode, we’ll be responding to a recent interview of Richard Dawkins by Piers Morgan on the Piers Morgan on censored show. Both men cover a wide range of topics and we will respond to some of what was said, but in no way respond to all of it. A link to the full episode without our commentary is in the show notes.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate, removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Alright, Jay, here’s the first clip. We’ll like to respond to.

[Morgan]

Know now about where we’ve come from and what don’t we?

[Dawkins]

OK, we know once you’ve got a self replicating entity which nowadays is DNA, but it wasn’t originally. Once you’ve got life started, once natural selection, Darwinian natural selection has got going. Then we pretty much understand. The 4 billion year history of what’s giving rise to us and all other living creatures, we don’t know how it started, and that’s still a mystery, and it may always be a mystery because it happened a very long time ago, and we may never know exactly what did happen. We know the kind of thing it had to be.

[MCG]

So it seems like we know nothing new. It is still a mystery, at least according to Richard Dawkins. Now I do consider myself an F student of chahan, so note I said F student of keenham, but I remember during the Ken Ham bill. My debate, one of the things that can have emphasized was the fact that what he believed about what he called historical science. Is based upon his fate, he challenged Bill Nye to also show that what he believed was faith as well, because at the end of the day, science have never proved evolution. But yet we said that at least Richard Dawkins saying here that hey, most of the things that we knew ten, 20-30 years ago. Or even more than that, it’s the same thing. We know nothing new. It’s still a mystery.

[Jay]

I think that’s a testament to the greatness of our God. He’s beyond much of our understanding and what we do understand about him is what he’s chosen to reveal. But when Richard Dawkins said that, I still can’t quite wrap my head around what he said. Now let me set a disclaimer out there and say that I am no biochemistry expert. I’m an off student of Ken Hems as well, but I don’t understand what he meant by. Something self replicating other than DNA and he equated that to life in one breath. He called it a self replicating entity before DNA, and that was life when life started to get going and I was under the understanding. I remember in biology class that the classification of life. Has many requirements. I can’t name them all, but I know that you have to react to your environment. You have to consume things and create energy or something along those lines. You have to have the. Capacity for growth. So there’s like a list of things in. EG If all of those things are present, you’re classified, or it is classified as life. So for Richard Dawkins to equate just strands of DNA, self replicating DNA, or the precursor to self, replicating strands of DNA to equate that to life upon which the process of natural selection can. Act doesn’t make any scientific sense to me. And again I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn’t make any sense to me. He said had absolutely. There are a lot of holes in what he said.

[MCG]

Yeah, I think what he was saying are not defending Richard Dawkins here at all. I think what he was saying is that and I think he will explain it a little bit further in the next clip, but he’s talking about not necessarily the characteristics of living things, whether they grow, eat, move, stuff like that. He’s talking about how. The light itself begin, and as I said, he’s probably going to get into the next clip, but he’s complaining. Complex life form to simple life form.

[Jay]

Think the scientific consensus now? Well, let me backtrack the secular scientific consensus now is abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from non life. And so if that’s the case, then what he said is that the process of natural selection. Was acting upon a non living thing and I know that he’s trying to explain the process by which life began, but he also said that the process of natural selection was acting upon this non living.

[MCG]

Well, the fact that they believe. In evolution clearly tell us that they believe life came from non life. That’s a given because at the end of the day, if you go as far back as possible, they either going to talk about the God or they going to talk about matter.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

So that’s what it boils down to in a nutshell, and we’ll get to that maybe later on. But OK, I want to play a clip by Ken Ham. Again, this is part of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye back in 2014, and Ken Ham make it clear that the difference between historical science. And observational science.

[Ken Ham]

No, I we admit our origins of historical science is based upon the Bible, but I’m just challenging evolutionists to admit the belief aspects of evolution and be upfront about the difference here. As I said, I’m I’m only too willing to admit my historical science based on the Bible.

[MCG]

Yeah, and I think. That’s very important because when it comes to. Observable science where Ken Ham called observable science is where you can know how a combustible engine work. Know how a smoke detector work, know how to put a Rover on Mars, and the advancements in technologies and stuff like that. Those are observable, repeatable and testable. Science historical science is talking about the origin of the world and the age of the Earth and all that stuff. There’s no tests that we know. Of that can clearly point and say this is what happened. So you’re either going to believe fallible man who say that, hey, there was a Big Bang and because the universe is still expanding, that’s proved that there was explosion some time ago and then we will say no, we believe Genesis 11 in the beginning God created. Than Earth and we can show that observable science does not contradict the Bible. So I think this is important here. But the men continue and this is where Morgan asks him, how did life?

[Morgan]

Kind of thing, do you think?

[Dawkins]

It was the origin of a self replicating molecule, a molecule that makes copies of itself. DNA is such a molecule, but the original one was almost certainly not DNA because DNA is a it’s been called a high tech replicator. There had to have been a precursor to DNA. Something the laws of chemistry gave rise to a molecule which had this unusual property of making copies of itself. Which mutated changed in random ways, and that gave rise to competition between rival versions of it, and that gave rise to the whole panoply of life.

[MCG]

So there I think you’re getting to what you’re talking about there. But again, he mentioned here the fact that life came from non life, but there was a viral phrase that went out when Tenham debated Bill Nye, I know. If you remember it, but here is.

[Ken Ham]

Bill, I I just wanna let you know that there there actually is a. Book out there.

[MCG]

So at the end of the day, as I said previously, we’d either believe an eternal God who created it all, Genesis 11 in the picnic, God created Earth, one who has no beginning and no end. In other words, we believe that God is outside of time and space, or you believe in eternal matter, that life came from non life. But it started as a Big Bang. And we are made of Stardust. So that’s the two alternative at this point. I’m sure that there are the beliefs in between those. If you want to say 2 extremes but at the end of the day you’re going to either believe the term matter because if you ask the question where did matter come from, the evolutionists and the atheists can’t answer that question. And when they say, where did God come from? We will say that he is eternal. He always exists and he exists outside of time and space and they will look at us as we are bunkers and we will look at them and like their bunkers. But at the end of the day, as I said before, it comes down to a fate. That’s why I agree with Ken Ham when he says that being an atheist is actually a religion.

[Jay]

They would completely disagree with you on that point.

[MCG]

Yeah, that’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the way it operates is a religion, right? So Richard Dawkins was then asked what was there before it all he was, what he has to say.

[Morgan]

Arguments with atheists historically have always come down to one thing, and maybe you’ve got an answer which will persuade me of the folly of my. Ways, which is this? What was there at the start?

[Dawkins]

We don’t know, but I don’t know and you don’t.

[Morgan]

Know and but but no human brain. Unless you want to correct me. Can actually comprehend nothingness, right?

[Dawkins]

But it’s an it’s an A fallacy to think that because I don’t understand how it happened. Therefore God did it. Mean that’s just weak.

[Morgan]

Well, no, I’m not OK, but I’m prepared to have an open mind about this. Yes, but somebody did. And I just have never met a human brain they can explain to me what happened before. Say you go for The Big Bang argument. What was there before? What does nothing look.

[Dawkins]

Like physicists are. Debating this, I’m not a physicist, but they’re debating it. My point is that. They don’t know and I don’t know. And you don’t know. And it doesn’t help to postulate a God that did it that.

[Morgan]

But you’re certainly is not a God, and yet you admit you don’t know.

[Dawkins]

No, I’m I’m certain that it doesn’t help to postulate something very complicated at the outset, because what we’ve got is primeval simplicity. And from that stems everything. And what science does. It starts with simplicity, which is relatively easy to understand, and from that it develops into. The whole of the universe and the whole of life. It doesn’t help to start with complexity, and a creator has to be complex.

[MCG]

So I will say here. I’m glad Richard Dawkins admitted that he doesn’t know. But he’s very arrogant in suggesting that because he doesn’t know and. Morgan doesn’t know. But he can’t be a God, so he’s admitting to the limit of his knowledge. So of all the knowledge out there in the world, let’s say, since we say Richard, document of our educated man and he probably is probably a very intelligent man.

[Jay]

I’m sure he is.

[MCG]

Let’s say he know 10% of all the knowledge that a man can attain of this world. He’s saying within that 10% that he does know that he is certain. That God didn’t create at all. But you don’t know. So which one is it? Does he really not know? Or does he know? So I’m going to take your word for it. He doesn’t know. However, I think he’s just a clear rejection of God, and that’s nothing new from sinful man. That’s nothing new from what we see every day out there when you try to share the gospel with folks and they reject it, that’s all Mr. Doctor is doing here. He’s going according to his natural sin Ben way. That all of us do, basically rejecting the notion of God, because if you can bitterly say, hey, I don’t know, but I’m certain. It’s not God, but I must also say about Piers Morgan, though I think Paige did give him a run for his money because he asked him some tough question, even though in my opinion, I think Piers Morgan cut him off a little bit too much and also kind of didn’t let him speak or complete his sentences as I would like. But at the end of day, I think Piers Morgan did ask him some. But Doc can just write in this, and I believe he like the truth. The biblical worldview starts with complexity and evolution by nature must start with simplicity. So therefore, Christians, who are they who accept stuff like theistic evolution, the gap theory, and all these other stuff, or any other forces blending of evolution and creation? And mixing water and oil, they just don’t mix because by nature evolution must start with simplicity. And by nature, by the way, it is creation, we’ll start with complexity and if we do mix anything, we are mostly being intellectually dishonest because at the end of the day, these are too drastic opposite beliefs and they cannot be blamed if we’re being honest.

[Jay]

This is another instance where I find Dawkins answer to be double speak or hypocritical or saying one thing, meaning another because. He says that it doesn’t help to introduce a creator or complexity at the start because as you said, a belief in evolution fundamentally must begin with simplicity and then work its way up to complexity. But in the same breath, he says the reason why you can’t do that. It’s because it’s too simple. It’s too naive. It’s too this. It’s too that. And that’s speaking out of both sides of your face. You can’t knock someone for being simple or for having a singular way of explaining the beginning of the universe. And then say that, oh, we have to start with simplicity and then build our way up toward complexity. I think that the creationist makes a lot more sense than the evolutionist, because if you start with complexity and then everything was marred by sins, that it begins to break down the way that sin affects the world, then that explains everything. That we see that explains why you go from order to disorder from order to chaos. That’s what we see. In the world which loft thermodynamics is it, is it the second law of thermodynamics where we see that being affirmed in the physical way that life plays out, we very rarely see the way evolution is, see life play out in the real world. Now there are elements of natural selection. I’m not knocking that. I’m not saying that’s not the case. But the idea that everything started. And from non life they don’t say nothing. They say non life. I noticed that too because Piers Morgan said no one can wrap their brain around nothingness. But I don’t think Dawkins believes that there was ever nothingness. He believes that there was non life and in an interview with who’s that actor with the glasses, the Mueller Mueller, that guy, I forget. Ben Stein, I think his name is Ben Stein. He says that it’s an interesting prospect to evaluate whether life may have been seeded onto planet Earth by other extraterrestrial forms. And so in his. Mind, there was never a point when there was nothing, so I’m not sure why Piers Morgan even brought up the concept of nothing because I don’t think Dawkins believes that he just believes that life comes from non life. So the elements were all. There, in his particular view, either way, it doesn’t make sense. But when Piers Morgan mentioned nothingness, that there was no reason for that. Dawkins didn’t say that. I’m going back to how that’s doublespeak. Again, I’m not a scientist, and I’m certainly not looking down on Dawkins because he’s certainly more educated than I am, but this is an instance of in Solomon. Too much learning doesn’t make you wise. You can learn so much and still be ignorant to the truth of Scripture. Still, be ignorant to facts to which second Peter says you are willfully ignorant. And I think that’s what we see there. That’s the only way you could talk yourself into circles like that.

[MCG]

Yeah, let’s play a clip 4 because the men continue along the same vein, and then I’ll probably have a comment on what you just. That as well.

[Morgan]

That I subscribe to the series, there must be a more powerful being out there than anything the human race has created. It’s because, like I say, a human brain can’t comprehend nothingness, or what may have come before nothingness. We can’t we’re not able to extrapolate what that is right. I mean, no scientists can explain. Can they plausibly?

[Dawkins]

Well, maybe they can’t. You’d have to talk to a. Physicist but even. Could you explain it? No, quite not a physicist. But in any.

[Morgan]

You’re a very smart guy and you’re a very vehement atheist and.

[Dawkins]

No, I’m not. I’m not that.

[Morgan]

Vehement, but you’re pretty vehement. I mean you, you just think all belief in all. Gods is ludicrous, right?

[Dawkins]

I think that it doesn’t help to introduce complexity at the outset. That’s my I get that. But but no you I.

[Morgan]

Don’t think you do get well, no, I do. But you’re asking me to consider that my own belief in a. The deity that may be above human thinking and understanding and brain power that was there. Universally that my theory is scientifically flawed, whereas I would throw back at you. OK, but I need to be given an alternative. I need some scientists somewhere to explain to me. Right, four, 4 billion years. But then what was there?

[Dawkins]

Before that, well, scientists can’t answer that, and they and what they say is things like. It’s like going to. It’s like going north of the North Pole. I’m sure I gathered recently, introduced Stephen Hawking. He probably said that to you.

[Morgan]

Yeah, he did that, yeah.

[Dawkins]

But the the point is this science can explain things starting with simplicity and working up too complex.

[Morgan]

But where science can’t explain something, I in the case I just gave you, is it not possible that you’re all wrong on? Atheist side of the argument.

[Dawkins]

The IT could be could be all wrong, but what?

[Morgan]

When you might get a shocking surprise one day when you’re no longer.

[Dawkins]

You, you. You.

[Morgan]

Might and you discover we were right all.

[Dawkins]

Along it’s possible. You can see it as possible OK.

Speaker

I don’t like.

[Morgan]

You don’t know though.

[Dawkins]

Of course I don’t. Scientists take a pride in admitting when what they don’t know, and they don’t know what happened before The Big Bang. They don’t even admit that the the word before means anything with respect to The Big Bang. Yes, this will tell. You, but it has to I. Well, it doesn’t, because that’s a naive statement. Physicists will say that that you do not have to. Say there was a. Time began and The Big Bang is. What some physicists will.

[Morgan]

Say but to which I immediately respond with my basic human brain.

[Dawkins]

I know you do.

[Morgan]

If time began, when did it begin?

[Dawkins]

Well, quite quite.

[Morgan]

And what was? There before, right? It’s a fairly obvious.

[Dawkins]

It is a very obvious question. It’s too obvious and physicists will tell you they’re being.

[Morgan]

Yeah, but they don’t know why I’m being naive because they can’t provide any actual scientific evidence.

[Dawkins]

The human brain is, as you’ve just said, the human brain is not capable of. Grasping these things, yes.

[Morgan]

Right, that’s my point. So why is it not possible that there is a superior being power which many people believe in in different ways, different different types of power?

[Dawkins]

It’s possible there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and all sorts of things are possible. You you you can’t. Deny that, I said.

[Morgan]

I’ve never seen fairies. In the garden, you never.

[Dawkins]

Seen God either. No, but you don’t know for sure. That either doesn’t exist. No, I don’t know that fairies don’t exist. Well, maybe leprechauns.

[MCG]

So that exchange was interesting. As I said before, I think his marking cut him off a little bit, but I guess he does that to kind of keep it interesting. So dark and doesn’t give a lecture, but Richard Dawkins at least the one that I knew of many years ago, seems to have softened his stand a little bit. At least he’s willing to admit that. He doesn’t know. But compared to his younger years, but I can’t help but to play this again.

[Ken Ham]

Bill, I I just wanna let you know that there there actually is a book. Out there because.

[MCG]

At the end of the day, again, I will admit that it comes down to my fate. To what the Bible teaches me about the origin of life, the origin of this universe. But he’s admitting, hey, I don’t know. Science does not know because. You know he’s sick, active physicist, but clearly. If there was an answer again, Piers Morgan didn’t say to him that you’re intelligent, man, I think he. Would know the fact is there’s no answer. Science has no answer for those questions. Because again, it comes down to eternal matter or eternal God, because we can keep on going what was before The Big Bang. Where did that matter come that explode? Because when I was listening. To Bill Nye debate in Ken Hammond, this is the second debate that they had, which was an informal debate as they were walking through the Ark Encounter. Bill and I believe that stars collide into Mars or something collide into Mars that trigger what we have now. So we are, I don’t know if he was joking a little bit or what. But he said that we are all Martians. And to me, you hear stuff like that, which they cannot prove scientifically. But they look at you believe again and think, man, you must be crazy to have a religious belief and believe that some God out there mysterious figure according to them created all. But I think to a logical brain, we have never seen life from non life science can’t prove that. That’s why they’re going well. So hard trying to find some form of life on Mars or some other place in the universe, because then they would believe, hey, now this proved evolution because they’ve never proved it. It has never been done. Not even in the laboratory that you can bring life from non life. What we have observed is life bigger life. So, scientifically, the Bible is still in line because God is life and we can say, hey, life begot life and that’s what we have seen biologically. You know what they darkens believe he was, he says. Some kind of chemical reaction or whatever the case may be that happened that caused this. Simple life that he believed. That was the first to come about. Then he grew complex to replicate in complexity where we have DNA which is complex. Whether he believed that or whatever the case may be. He can’t prove it. He can’t be proven in laboratory. Can’t I call it historical science? It’s not testable. It’s not repeatable, which is something that which are characteristics of things that should be. That we call scientific. You know, that’s why we can again prove how a smoke detector work because it’s observable, repeatable and testable. So I just find it interesting that he continuously say he doesn’t know which is a better fresh air, to be honest. But then, even in his uncertainty and his lack of knowledge, he’s certain again, that God didn’t do it.

[Jay]

You know, I think to go back to what you said about faith, that all of this goes back to our faith in what the Bible says. I would like to add to that. It’s not simply faith. If we say the word faith, Richard Dawkins would hear that word and think ohh it’s just blind faith. There’s no underpinning or reason to believe that particular thing. In this case, God being the creator and creating the Earth in six literal days. But the linchpin of our faith is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, because that was God’s stamp of approval saying. I affirm this, let’s say man, as it were. This is God Incarnate. Everything that he said is true. This is the one to follow. And of course, that happened also at his baptism, where the Holy Spirit came down and there’s a voice saying this is my son. Hear ye, him. But the linchpin of our faith is the resurrection and Christ. During his time on Earth, affirmed the Old Testament prophets in particular, he affirmed Moses, and Moses said in the five books, in Genesis in particular, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the So our faith isn’t just some idea that we got from a mythical book or some idea that someone came up with many thousands of years ago. This was truth that God put to paper by means of men who wrote the scriptures down. And it’s him telling us what he. If science could explain God, he wouldn’t be God. I think that Richard Dawkins and his idea of science and his idea of discovering things through the means of science and in his idea evolutionary theory and all of that. The reason why he dismisses the idea of God, is just because it’s so simple. It’s so naive. So all the different words that he called it, but in reality what he wants is for God to submit to science. But it’s the other way around. Science submits to God, and as you said earlier, it’s him. Trying to acknowledge the God who created him, who created the universe, who created the earth and refused to acknowledge the God who put all of these things in motion in favor of something that he feels like he could explain. In this case, evolutionary theory by means of natural selection.

[MCG]

Yeah, I think ultimately what Richard Dawkins really want is a God that he can understand and.

[Jay]

And thereby control.

[MCG]

Right. So therefore one of the major reason why he rejects God and upset the God of science that he has because he understand that he can explain it to. Some degree he can. And Marvel over it. But the God of the Bible that he can’t understand, because if God was small enough for us to understand, then he would be God. So ultimately Richard Dawkins is his own God. So here’s clip 5, where Richard Dawkins double down. The fact that God did not do.

[Morgan]

It milder about this is you’ve got old. Have you got more accepting that there may be you may be wrong less?

[Dawkins]

Certain. Well, yes, of course. A scientist may always be wrong and and that’s definitely I think that a scientist has to say, but I’m not vehement. You’re you’re provoking me to be vehement because you’re taking that tone with me, but.

[Morgan]

Well, you’ve been proved. Before yes, and you’ve been quite vehement in response. I’m actually not trying to provoke you. I’m genuinely curious. Yes, because I don’t have all the answers, but I’m always skeptical of people who think they do. I don’t think. You think you do, but your admission you don’t have all the answers to me is quite interesting because it lends the possibility you.

[Dawkins]

Might be wrong. Well, it’s not interesting. I mean, no, no scientist. Has all the answers but but the one thing you shouldn’t say is that that because I don’t know. Therefore God did it.

[Jay]

I don’t think anyone is saying that. I don’t think anyone is saying because I don’t know how life began and because I don’t know what was there before life. Then God did it. That’s not what Christians are doing at all. Whatever broad stroke you color yourself is Christian, I think what Christians are saying is God said he did it, and we believe him. That’s what we’re saying. Saying ohh we don’t know. God did it. He thinks that’s what Christians are saying. But I don’t think that’s what Christians are.

[MCG]

Saying at all. Well, I’m a little bit confused here by docking. So for me to understand him here while he’s admitting that he doesn’t know that he could. He’s not as vehement as he. Once were before. But God did not do it. He knew that for sure. So you do not know, but you do know. You do not know, you do not know everything. But you do know for sure that God didn’t do it. He’s contradicting himself. He’s going again. He’s just simply saying hey. Of all the possibilities out there that will bring this universe about, there’s only one thing I’m sure of God did that do it. That’s what it boils down to. And again, as I said before, it’s just simply a rejection of God. That’s all it is. This is to remove it by with podcast. We will be right back.

[Jay]

Hey, thanks so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Did you know that you could find us on Twitter, Gab Parlor, Facebook and Reddit, go to removingbarriers.net/contact and like and? Follow us on social media. Removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

So after this, though, the men went on and discuss what I will characterize as a very sad exchange. They talk about death.

[Morgan]

It happens when you die.

[Dawkins]

As Bertrand Russell said, I believe that when I die, I shall rot and nothing of my ego shall. Remain. That’s it. There’s nothing else. How could they? How could it be otherwise? I mean, you you have a brain like an evolved brain, which works by nerve impulses. And when that decays, what could possibly be?

[Morgan]

Left so you don’t believe in, for example, a spirit or a soul. None of that is, that’s all conditional entirely on a link to a.

[Dawkins]

Actual cerebral yes. If if by spirit or soul you mean something that outlasts the brain. And I do not believe in. It though really.

[Morgan]

Well, how could I? Well, people have gone through weird sort of out of body near death experiences where they they’ve been pronounced dead for a few minutes. They always talk about almost all of them talk about this weird.

[Dawkins]

A tunnel right at.

[Morgan]

So, I mean, yeah, it could.

[Dawkins]

Be, couldn’t it? Yes, but read Susan Blackmore on.

[Morgan]

That would you like to be pleasantly surprised, or would you be appalled? If you were wrong.

[Dawkins]

Well, I would be pleasantly surprised for a while. I don’t think. I’d like to deliver all eternity would.

[Morgan]

You and would I don’t, it depends. What it’s like? Fraternity was watching, you know. Cricket at Lords all day and watching Arsenal win every week. Yes, give me that really. If eternity is is blissful and a wonderful experience.

[Dawkins]

I think there’s some I think there is something actually rather frightening about eternity and I’d be quite glad to be spending it under a general anesthetic.

[Morgan]

And some people believe.

[MCG]

So we have done a number of episode J, the latest of which being debt. Is there anything beyond with missionary Marco, that is episode One, Agenda 22? We did episode. 64 hell on a loving God an episode 65 heaven and the Holy God with our friend DW. Now with that said. How sad it is to live this life and when you die, you’re done. You might as well live as you wish. There’s nothing in this life or after that will prevent you from living the way you want. And we see that as a foot of evolution. People living life the way. They want to live their life. And that’s one thing. Can him always emphasize is that? What we are seeing now calls you today is directly a fruit of evolution, whether it’s homosexuality or the LGBTQIA plus movement. And the many other corruptions that we see in this world today can be linked directly back to evolution, even racism. It was in biology textbooks that they teach, and this is something that can ham even read during his exchange with Bill Nye. In a book out there that was a biology textbook back then that basically tells us that I’m just going to read it here. You talk about the five different types of people group the races of men and finally the highest type of all the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe. In America, this was in the bag. I don’t remember the name of it, but I will certainly link it in the show notes because it’s old enough to be a free book online today. I’m like all these things are directly linked to evolution. So when you die, you’re done. So therefore live away, please, because you don’t have to answer to loving God or Holy God or trust God. But one thing we did cut out from this exchange was when Morgan said that he’s Catholic and that’s interesting here because it was Christ who said that the. Mine cannot lead the blind, and even though Morgan may, if you want to take more closely align to our belief what Richard Dawkins need is not religion.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Is a relationship with Jesus Christ, is salvation to repentant faith to Jesus Christ? The Bible teaches us in Luke 16 and verse 23 the Bible says and in hell he lift up his eyes being in torment. That was a story that Jesus told in Luke chapter 16. Sorry to say this well, I’m not really sorry, but because it’s true, darkens and Morgan. Will be presently surprised as well. Especially if Morgan is relying upon his Catholic fate. If they die without repenting of their sins and trust in Christ as their savior, they too will open their eyes in hell. And yeah, a false belief can give you comfort, just like Piers Morgan may have his false belief that have comfort. But Darken is right. You’re no better off than I am because. Your religion is not going to save you. Just like my quote UN quote, lack of religion, it’s not going to save me. It’s a repented faith in Jesus Christ. What a sad exchange between 2 unsaved men talking about death and the comfort or lack of comfort that they have outside of repentant faith in Jesus Christ.

[Jay]

This is almost as sad as the time when we discussed the Babylon bee interviewing Elon Musk and declaring him saved when he said, oh, you know, I believe in God almost just as sad, even though that one was a lot sadder because you had people who. From what I understand, are genuinely saved, not giving the gospel to someone sitting right in front of them who actually needed it, but absolutely it’s a sad exchange. 1st, it’s the blind leading the blind and 2nd. Both of them have no real hope of eternity. 1 doesn’t believe in eternity and and just has his head in the sand about it, the other one. Has all he can do is hope you and I go knocking on doors. You pretty much go every week I go as often as I can. And if you’re speaking to a Catholic person, then you ask them if they are. Or about where they will spend an eternity. They are never, and I’ve yet to meet a Catholic that answers in the affirmative. They don’t know for sure, and so the reason why this is tragic to hear this exchange, the reason why this is tragic is because of that clip you played where Ken Ham says actually there is a book. There is a book and in the first chapter of John it says these things have I written or these things. Have I written that you may know that you have eternal life, so if you. Read the first chapter of John first.

[MCG]

John, first John chapter 5.

[Jay]

Yes, that’s right. First John, thank you. If you read that passage and none of those things are true of you, then you know you don’t have eternal life. So there’s no reason for us to go through life wondering, or even being adamant that there isn’t hope. Or just hoping that somehow God will have mercy on you and allow you to spend eternity. What did he say? Watching cricket or whatever some some flippant comment he made about eternity Piers Morgan made about eternity. We have a book. We have the truth. So as Christian it really falls on us to make sure that we are doing our part to go out into the world and share the gospel, because here we have on the Internet for everyone to see how absolutely clueless even the most intelligent people are about God, about eternity, and about how they can be made right. The holy God.

[MCG]

Yeah, but also Piers. I would say that he’s not safe, so therefore he’s as in love with Jesus. So why would he have a desire to be with Jesus in eternity? Again, I think to some extent also, to be fair, I think he was being flippant, saying playing cricket and stuff like that. You know, we do it all the time. You talk about the food that we’re going to have in every other language going to have in heaven. I remember many years ago, my brother and I were talking about who’s going to be the best. Batsmen in heaven are the best bowler you know. Most likely we’re going to be playing cricket in heaven, but I would characterize myself as I played cricket in school. As a batsman he was a bowler. And we were just joking and saying that you would be able to Get Me Out. But you say I wouldn’t be able to get in runs out for him because I’ll be the perfect batsman. He’d be the perfect bowler, so I think.

[Jay]

To some extent, he was just being flippant. It’s OK for you all to be flippant about that or joking about that because you have that assurance he doesn’t. None of that.

[MCG]

Well, I agree with you on that point, but I can’t get down on him being flippant when I do the same thing, you know, it’s always saying I understand that because we know his fate structure does not teach salvation to Jesus Christ alone, that the possibility of him being saved is pretty nil or pretty low.

[Jay]

Oh, I see what you’re OK.

[MCG]

But if we can be flipping. But it about something like that. I think he was just being casual. I don’t want to get them to add a name on that one, but here is dark and doubling down on his hopelessness.

[Morgan]

Finality of what? You think death to be. Do you fear it as you get?

[Dawkins]

Older I fear the process of dying. But when you’re dead, you don’t know anything. It’s just like before you were born, I think was Mark Twain said I was. I was dead for billions of years before I was born and never suffered the smallest.

[Morgan]

But when when you have loved ones who’ve died, for example, that’s tragic. How do somebody who believes literally in the finality the the rotting of the body, and that’s it? It must be worse than for somebody like me, where I genuinely believe there’s something better to come.

[Dawkins]

It’s worse. So what?

[Morgan]

Not So what, just curious that it must be for you for each time far worse than it is for people. Who have a belief? Yes, it is a lot of people take great comfort from their belief in God that there is a. Different life out there.

[Dawkins]

Yes, they do.

[Morgan]

You don’t have that sucker at all. So is it is it? Is it incredibly painful? More more for you perhaps than?

[Dawkins]

Some no, I don’t think there is a believer. Let me put it to it this way. If you really did believe it, wouldn’t you say to the person on the death bed looking forward to seeing you in purgatory?

[Morgan]

A lot of what a lot of people say looking forward to seeing you in another life, yeah.

[Dawkins]

Yes, a lot of people say that you don’t really believe it though.

[Morgan]

See, I I do. Yeah, I do, actually, because I find it when I think about it in big picture, which is your great thing. I think you how likely is it that we just got put on this planet Earth as human beings, as a one off kind of entity that existed here. And then you die, and that’s it. And we and and only lasted 4 billion years, and before that was. Absolutely nothing at all. How likely is that to have been the case? I don’t think that’s likely my my human brain, which is limited. Does not think that is.

[Dawkins]

Likely, I think it’s very likely. Really, it’s exactly what happened, yes.

[Morgan]

We are a tiny tiny dot in the. Universe. Right. Exactly so. So you don’t know what else is out there really, other than what scientists have?

[Dawkins]

No, I I think it’s highly likely that there are other beings out there which are much cleverer than we are. Super human, not supernatural, but superhuman. And I would love to meet them. I probably couldn’t understand what they said.

[MCG]

So that all you do is see dark and hopelessness here, but one can even argue that darkens no. He knows he’s hopeless. But as I said before, what is even more sad in my opinion is that Sir Morgan or Piers Morgan as a Catholic is hopeless too. But it is more sad because. He doesn’t know he’s hopeless. At least the Arkansas admitted that.

[Jay]

Admitting that he knows right.

[MCG]

So it’s like Piers Morgan is grabbing at straws while he’s going. Under and showed you know to doctors and say, hey, you’re going under, why didn’t you grab this straw as well? Because he doesn’t have any hope to give to darkens. But yet without Christ, as I said before, their destiny had the same whether or not he’s Catholic and darkened quote UN quote is 80s, the testing is the same because.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

You don’t get to heaven, you don’t have eternal life outside of Christ. The Bible talk about an awful place, a Christ as eternity that he refer to as hell. But if we are. We can find that hope and comfort in Christ. The Bible says in first Thessalonians 4, verse 13 to 18. But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them that asleep. Aka adults that are dead that he suffered not even as others which have no hope for. If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him? For this, we say unto you by the word of the Lord, thou we which are alive and remain. Unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them, which are. Sleep for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the Trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the ear, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wave for comfort. One another with these words, Titus Chapter 2 and verse 13 looking for the Blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. What an assurance that we have in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That we know that the Bible teaches that if we have repented of our sins and trust Christ as our savior, that we can be assured we have that blessed hope that we can look forward to that. None of these men have. And if I want to say this, this the main purpose of this podcast, the movie barriers is to give men that assurance. Point them to Jesus Christ, removing barriers so they can have a clear view of. But our hope we have in our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Jay]

Do you have the desire to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints? Answers in Genesis can help. They provide biblically sound books, CD’s, DVD’s, homeschooling, materials VS materials, online courses, digital downloads, and the Answers magazine and more. Plus tickets to the Creation Museum and Ark encounter go to the answers book store by clicking the link in the description section below so you too can be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason of the hope that is in you. Hi, this is Jay MC G and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing bar. Cheers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate, removing barriers, a clearview of the cross.

[MCG]

Alright, Jay, so Dawkins and Morgan, after that exchange, talk about tribalism, free speech, some UK politics. Most parts I agree with some of the things that they said there. So we’re not going to respond to that. They also discuss artificial intelligence and what effect it will have on human society and many other topics. So of course we don’t want this episode to be too long, so we’ll skip over those things and we’ll not respond to that portion of the video. Again, as I said, a link to the entire conversation will be in the show notes. However, they did talk about. The woke agenda being forced upon biologists and the language being changed and all that stuff. So here is the next clip we would like to respond.

[Morgan]

Back with Richard Dawkins, Richard recently members of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Language project, funded by scientists in the US and Canada, produced a list of 24 harmful terms. These included male, female, man, woman, mother, and father. They recommended using phrases like. Firm producing egg producing. XYX individual. And they should be used to avoid reinforcing societally imposed ideas of a sex binary to which your response was the only possible response is contemptuous ridicule. Which I cheered. I have to say because it was complete madness. How have we come to this?

[Dawkins]

English is my native language. Is your native language and I propose to use it in the way that I have always used it and I’m not going to be censored by. They have you looked at those people? I mean, they they look.

[Morgan]

Well, it’s just what’s extraordinary to me is they they want to what they call gender and neutralised language. But they’re doing it from a completely false pretext that you can somehow pretend biology doesn’t exist, particularly when it comes to someone sex. I mean it. Scientific doubt about this, and yet a small group of people have been quite successful actually in Reshad. Thing vast swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to.

[Dawkins]

It’s bullying and we’ve seen the the way JK Rowling has been bullied carefully and stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it, but but it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to. Capture the discourse and to really talk arrant nonsense.

[MCG]

I must say it’s refreshing to see that at least, even though darker than, I disagree on historical. Means that at least he’s intellectually honest enough to agree on observable science that hey, there are two sexes according to biology. And according to the scriptures.

[Jay]

But it’s also not refreshing in the sense that he does not see how the evolutionary perspective gives rise to what we see now as transgenderism woke ISM and all of the other deviations from truth that are prevalent in our society. When you posit that there. Is no God, and that things are random and that. Natural selection is the driving force and it’s not really a God who created everything who is keenly interested in each person that each person would come to salvation and to have a genuine relationship with the Redeemer of the Lord Jesus Christ. When you remove all of that sort of thing, what reason is there to? Live or not live? What reason is there to live in such a fashion that? Points others to the savior. What reason is there to hold on to the fact that there is male and female? Why can’t you be whatever you want to be? Why can’t you simply choose and have your pronouns, and have all of these different things that seem to have taken this country and perhaps the world by storm in the last year or two, perhaps three years or so? So in the same way that he seems to be standing up to the woke nonsense, he also can’t see how his belief system gave rise to.

[MCG]

It right and I fully agree with. There’s a disconnect there that I don’t think he’s making, but.

[Jay]

But he is absolutely right. This idea that somehow we have to change how language has been used for the past several millennia in order to accommodate mental illness and people living in outright delusion is completely bonkers. There is no reason. And then there’s no logic as to why we should be subject to that, and people should stand up to it.

[MCG]

Yeah, and darkens. Dig even deeper in clip 9.

[Morgan]

What’s the answer to it?

[Dawkins]

Science, I mean. There are two sexes you could talk about gender if you wish, and that’s a subjective.

[Morgan]

I’m not when people say. There are 100 genders, for example.

[Dawkins]

Yeah, yeah, I’m not interested in. That, as as a biologist. There are two sexes. And that’s all there is to it.

[Morgan]

You had a humanist awards stripped in 2021 because of your comments about this kind of thing. You had a tweet in April of that year in 2015 you tweeted Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter. President in America, the NAN double ACP was vilified for identifying as black. She was white. Some men choose to identify as women. Some women choose to identify as men. You’ll be vilified if you deny that they are literally are what they identify as discuss and all hell broke loose and you had your award strips because you were effectively doing what JK Rowling and others have said you were just espousing.

[Dawkins]

A biological fact I wasn’t even doing that I was asking, asking people to discuss. That’s what I’ve done all my life in universities.

[Morgan]

Right. Why have we lost that ability to actually have an open and frank debate?

[Dawkins]

There are people for whom the word disgust doesn’t mean discuss. It means you’ve taken a position which I hadn’t. But anyway, I thought it was a reasonable thing to discuss. This was on. On the one hand, I actually wrote a couple of follow up articles to it to this race is actually a much more fluid concept than. For one thing, many people are of mixed race, so they really can be, you know.

[Morgan]

Like I had my DNA done for example, properly tested it came back, I had zero English DNA 0. I actually have 6% Middle Eastern, yes, for example, right. So that was a shock to me. I had no idea. Yes, a lot of kelt a lot of Irish and Scottish and Welsh, yes, but no English whatsoever, yes.

[Dawkins]

Well, we’re all mixed and therefore it actually is a perfectly reasonable thing for somebody to to identify as some particular race if they want to. But sex is not like that. Sex really is binary, and therefore it’s it’s something is certainly worth discussing, that odd anomaly which I pointed out in that tweet.

[MCG]

Yeah, that’s all true that we have lost the ability to disagree, to agree we have lost the ability to have a debate and walk away and still be friends. And that is a sad outlook on where the world is today, because if we can’t do that anymore, we’re just going to. Shouting in our echo chambers, talking to people who already agree with us because you can’t disagree. Look at Riley Gaines, who was at one point was the fastest swim male swimmer in their country. She had to complete against a biological man, William Thomas, who goes now by Leah Thomas. And in one of the race, she actually tied him. And I’m like, you know, where’s your shame? I remember growing up. You know, we’ll always either give the girls a head start or give them some sort of advantage as boys when we were competing against. Because usually we are faster, we can jump higher. We are quicker. Whatever the case may be, but that has all gone out of the window. You can argue maybe some of that has to do with the rise of feminism and the fact that women have been saying for years that they can be or can do anything that a man can do be anything a man can be and no men are saying hey.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Well, we can be better woman than you are, but I do. I grew darker than the fact that race is way more fluid and way more. Possible of being quote UN quote chance racial than to be transsexual because you can mutilate yourself as much as possible. You can do all the surgeries to appear female as much as possible. The man will never be able to be a woman, no matter how much they make themselves look or appear from the outside. As a woman and the same is true, a woman never be a man. You know, if you’re XY chromosome, you cannot somehow claim that you have X chromosomes or vice versa. You just intellectually dishonest, and we need people. To make that argument, but I also want to emphasize here this kind of show again, even though I agree with darkens on this, this kind of show again because when page mark on ice and what’s the answer, he says science. But again, science comes from the Bible. The answers are science. The answer is the word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ because.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

I’ve heard doctors and people with other letters after the name that I don’t have argue that a man can turn into a woman. We have a Supreme Court Justice who couldn’t define what a woman is. So you have people who are educated.

[Jay]

Because she’s not a biologist.

[MCG]

Right. So therefore about just wouldn’t know what a woman is. So therefore there’s a definition for woman.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

So to me, it’s being intellectually dishonest is not following the science that we do know, but most important, as I emphasize here again, the important thing is. This problem is not going to be changed without the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and so it’s not science as much as science confirms the Bible. The answer is not science, because science didn’t cause this. The science can’t fix it. What the fix is, is that men have rejected God and his word and. Return to God in his word. Will fix it.

[Jay]

God is immutable. He doesn’t change people, particularly like Dawkins have this heavy reliance on this heavy faith in. What what baffles me is that they don’t see how science has been hijacked and manipulated into something that right now we’re being bludgeoned across the head with. If you don’t believe this particular set of orthodoxy that we say is Orthodoxy in this case, it’s evolutionary theory, or now woke theory and all that sort of thing. Well then you’re out of the realm of science and you’re. Inside this, inside that? Well, if science could be hijacked to that degree and to be made into something that it’s not. Then it’s subject to the one who’s hijacking it. To do that, if that makes any sense, it goes back to what I said before, where I said that God is above science. Science is subject to God. God defines science, not the other way around. And so for him to say, Oh well, the answer is science. I’m just screaming at the. Top of my. No, it’s not science. Don’t you see how anyone can take the so-called science and twist it and manipulate it into whatever they want it to be? In this case, men can be girls. Girls can be men. Their X amount of pronouns fill in. Blank and it’s all under the banner under the truth of Science Air quotes.

[MCG]

Yeah, the men did went on and discuss transgender quote, UN quote athletes, AKA men competing in women’s sport. This is what Dawkins has to say about that.

[Morgan]

This situation where in women’s sport, for example, transgender athletes are destroying women’s record. And beating women in women’s sport, you know, by immeasurable distance.

[Dawkins]

We don’t disagree about this. No, we don’t.

[Morgan]

Right. Yeah, I mean it, it seems to me complete madness, just scientific madness that we’re allowing this.

[Dawkins]

To happen, yes.

[MCG]

So Jay, I wonder who’s to blame? Here or who’s. To be blamed more, what is the LGBTQ plus or the feminist movement for the transgender athletes competing against women?

[Jay]

It has to be the feminist movement, because without the feminist movement. But there wouldn’t be the space for the LGBTQIA 8 plus. What is it now? It’s there’s 2A and A+ now, right? I can’t keep track. Of the acronym.

[MCG]

I think it’s 2S, LGBTQIA A+ or something like.

[Jay]

That feminism, destabilized or not even destabilized, obliterated the God ordained relationship between men and women. And I think that opened the floodgates. It’s or I should say it’s one of the many things that opened the floodgates to the degeneracy that we see today. Even now, when you speak to homosexuals and the majority of them, I would say from what I’ve seen and from what I’ve read, don’t agree with the completely illogical, unscientific. And bullying ways of the transgender movement and in the way that it targets children in particular. But once you let immorality out the bag, once you let sin touch and contaminate things. There’s really no way that you can put the cat back in the bag, as it were. So once feminism portrays the relationship between men and women as oppressive as something to be fought and something to fight against, and that women can come together and be together and have just as meaningful a relationship, that’s the lesbianism. Once you have the L, all of the other acronyms follow and you can’t put the cat back in the bag as it were. At that point, send only multiplies and destroys everything it touches. It doesn’t get any better. In another episode. I can’t remember which one I talked about. How the sins that we commit and heterosexual relationships opened the door as well for those in same sex relationships to say, well, well, if they can have their sin. I have mine and then you have this domino effect where one person sin or one type of sin opens the door to other types. Sin I remember in arguments they would call it the slippery slope effect, and everyone would say, oh, that’s being dramatic. That’s being conspiracy theorist. But now we see that’s actually what’s happening.

[MCG]

Yeah, I’ll just say as a man who grew up, you know, competing in track and field and basketball and cricket and stuff like that in school, back in my glory days, I guess I should say. These men should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of their stuff, that they will go on a podium and accept a trophy by beating some woman. That’s not impressive. No one think that you’re great at what you do because you are a man and you win in a woman competition.

[Jay]

Oh, but it’s their truth.

[MCG]

That’s not impressive. I look at that and I was like, come on. Where has shame gone? I remember as boys growing up with a girl, beat us in foot race we’ll be. Scorned by the rest of the boys that the girl actually beat you, you will never do that. And now men are claiming to be women and competing woman. Put them beating the girls and all of a sudden they’re great. No, you’re not. No, you’re not. No, you’re not a great swimmer. You’re average swimmer. Because when you compete against the boys. You didn’t even place. What you were like, what 200 or something in the country, you probably not even much better than me and another swimmer. You go swim against them, girls. And you didn’t even win. They tie you. You should be.

Speaker

OK.

[MCG]

OK, I get off my rent. But anyway, the next clip, the man move on and talk about the COVID pandemic.

[Morgan]

Problems that scientists have, and we saw this in the COVID pandemic, is that scientists, by definition, they evolve positions according to changing facts. And we saw in the pandemic that originally the perceived scientific wisdom was that masks, for example, would be ineffective in preventing the spread of COVID. Then they changed their mind about that. We were told that the vaccines would stop. Passing on the virus and it turned out that wasn’t true. We were told there’s been a whole debate, as you know, about where the virus may have started. The belief was from the wet market. Maybe it was from this lab in Wuhan and so on. Those who are anti science. They leap on these things and they said, well, there you go. There you go. Why should we believe or follow the science when they do such dramatic U turns? In a health crisis for. Example, what do you say to that?

[Dawkins]

Well, it’s it’s true. I mean, science actually does change its mind because when when I think it was John Maynard Keynes said when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir? And so this was. This all happened in such a hurry? It was all a great rush to to produce. And there wasn’t time to take the normal balanced look at the evidence and so naturally. They changed their mind and it’s a virtue of science, actually. They can change their mind. Scientists can change them.

[MCG]

Well, I must say I agree with doctors again. We did episode one of June 27 COVID lesson learned. Also, episode 67, vaccine mandates and the American Way, and also episode 48 COVID politics and Christians. Both of those were done with our friend MD, but I emphasize again here because the problem with COVID was not. Or even the vaccine was not science. It was politics.

Speaker

Right.

[MCG]

Politics crept in and that is what, at least in the US, and imagining Europe as well, that is was the biggest driving factor behind COVID. And what we do or did not do. It was politics and power.

[Jay]

And the science suffered as a result. As I mentioned before, remember Anthony Fauci talking about himself being the science, the science. Well, as Darkin said, well, we didn’t have time to evaluate everything. We didn’t have time to observe or test it. And if we did, it was in a much more truncated. Hurried and rushed form. But when they said all of those things that we now know to not be true, it was deemed as the science and to go against it was anathema. Basically, you could be cancelled. Many people were cancelled as a result of going against the so-called science. Well, if science is so absolute, how is it that it can be? Again, science is subject to God, not the other way around. And this man who is obviously super educated, we know Dawkins. He’s not a stupid man. Educated but absolutely refusing to acknowledge, his maker has made him an absolute fool. And I can say that as someone who has absolutely not even a pinky tip amount of knowledge compared to what he has, I can call him a fool because the scriptures say the fool hath said in his heart that there is no God.

[MCG]

Yep, I fully agree. We’ll wrap it up by playing this last clip, which will be clip 12, where darkens make reference to another star system. So here is darkens on that.

[Morgan]

Is the question you would most like to get answered.

[Dawkins]

I think it is. Is there extraterrestrial intelligence? I think I would like to be visited by. Well, I will never be visited by actual bodies, I think, but visited by radio waves from another star system.

[Morgan]

Do you believe it exists?

[Dawkins]

Yes, I’m not totally confident, but but I. I if if I well. Carl Sagan once said he didn’t know, and so his press to say, well, what’s your gut feeling? And he said, well, I try not to think with my gut, but yes, I I I think statistically the odds must be that that, that there is. It might be quite rare whether, say, maybe only a billion instances in the universe, and that’s very rare indeed, because the the number of possible planets is something like 10 to 22. So a billion would would be very rare, so rare we might never encounter it.

[Morgan]

What else would you love to?

[Dawkins]

Know origin of life. The origin of the universe consciousness. If I were a physicist, I would want to know how to unify quantum theory and gravity, but not a physicist. So don’t ask me about it.

[Jay]

You know what I find very interesting about all the things that he says he wants to know all of the things he wants to. Is God what is the origin of life, God, consciousness, God, all of these things are inexplicable apart from God.

[MCG]

Yeah, to quote Richard Dawkins in reference to another star system, he says the odds must be that there is. But when he asked him, the odds of God, existence is 0 and they call what we believe. We had a bunkers 1 yet. It is the same man who said this?

[Dawkins]

I despise people who believe something without evidence and then go out and take action which damages other people.

[MCG]

The Dawkins must despise himself as well because he believes stuff without evidence and because of his influence, because he’s a very popular guy, have written some 18 books. Now he go, didn’t try to influence people to believe so. So he must despise himself as well. So Dawkins wants to take a swim without getting wet. He wants to reconcile his goat with his cabbage. He wants to have his cake and eat it as well. He said that we are the bunkers when he called our belief bunkers, but yet he believes that there’s some star system out there with whatever this is a serious podcast. But I need to play this.

Alright, so he wants to know the origin of life, the universe, consciousness. I think this clip is appropriate.

[Ken Ham]

Bill, I I just want to let you know that there there actually is. A book out there.

[MCG]

So yes, Mr. Dawkins, the Bible tell us. Of the origin of life, the origin of the universe and consciousness. But you, Sir, have rejected God. The only hope you will ever had to get an answer the Bible declared in Hebrews Chapter 9, verse 27. And as it appointed unto man, wants to die. But after this the judgment, the the judgment coming. And yes, you’ll be surprised you’ll have to stand before a loving and a holy God. You will have to stand before the judge of the world and give account. And it will all come down to this. Where there ever time in your life? Your earthly life, where you recognize that you were wretched Sinner Dawkins, a wretched Sinner, Piers Morgan. A wretched Sinner listener, wherever there a time in your life where you realize that you’re a wretched Sinner and confess your sin and trust Christ as your Lord and personal saviour. The Bible declares in Romans Chapter 3 and verse 23 for all that include you listener have seen and come short of the glory of God. All means all sin separates us from a holy God as I face in Universe 2, but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid. His face from you that he will not hear. But even in your separation from God, God demonstrated his love for you by sending his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for your sins and for mine. Romans, chapter 5, verse 8. But God commended his love towards us and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. But we must perceive. That gift we must receive. That true repentant faith, the Bible tells them, acts up the 8:00 and verse 22. Repent he dear. Four of this thy wickedness and pray God that if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven, thee acts 3 verse 19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come. From the presence of the Lord, would you repent of your sins and turn to Christ today?

[Jay]

Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate US everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, or. Pitcher removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get ahold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers, go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the removing Barriers podcast we attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.