Shariah: The Threat to America

My shocking and eye-opening interview with former U.S. Marine and FBI Counter-terrorism officer, John Guandolo, airs May 7 and May 8 on our Radio program.  You can download for free the entire report that Mr. Guandolo co-authored here.  Go to http://strategicengagement.org to learn more about Mr. Guandolo and the work he and others are doing to inform America about the threat of Shariah law in the United States.

/by

Carry My Cross: The Passion of Christ

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). That includes you and me.  Have you accepted the payment he made? He is risen.

/by

Courage over Compromise: A Martyr for Christ

Shehbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in the Pakistani cabinet, was assassinated on March 2 by Muslim terrorists for opposing Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. As he reveals in this short interview shortly before his murder, Mr. Bhatti chose courage over compromise for the cause of Christ and his persecuted Christian brothers and sisters.

/by

The Atheist Inquisition

,

Two High Court judges in the UK have ruled that a Christian couple can no longer provide a home to foster kids under the age of ten.  Why?  Because the couple does not agree with homosexual practice!

The judges declared that they were “secular.”  This ruling is a kind of atheist inquisition.  Contrary to popular opinion, all laws legislate morality, and there is no neutrality on moral issues, nor is there a neutral worldview.   This ruling legislates the view that any view that contradicts homosexual practice will not be tolerated– conservative religious and moral beliefs must give way to homosexuality.  Keep in mind that the Christian couple– Eunice and Owen Johns– were not even addressing homosexuality with their young foster kids.  According to the court, simply holding natural law, traditional religious views disqualifies them from being foster parents.  That’s not “tolerance,” that’s totalitarianism.

In fact, during the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, an official watchdog, suggested that the couple could attend a ‘re-education’ programme, according to Mrs. Johns. ‘Why do we need to be re-educated? Because we believe that homosexuality is not right?’ she said.

The people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” have proven once again that they are the most intolerant people out there.  Unless Christians and others start standing up, the atheist inquisition will continue.

Melanie Phillips does a good job highlighting the numerous problems with this absurd ruling here.  Worth the read.

/by

Slavery and Abortion: The Justifications are the Same

Today is the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one the most famous cases in Supreme Court history.   As we reflect on 52 million dead since the decision– and are reminded of the horrific reality of abortion by the discovery of the abortuary in Philadelphia (click here if you can stomach reading the grand jury report)–  note that Roe has a number of parallels with another famous case, Dred Scott v. Sandford.  

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

7 to 2

Slavery is legal

Blacks are not persons

Blacks are the property of their owners (masters)

Abolitionists should not impose morality on the slave owner

Roe v. Wade (1973)

7 to 2

Abortion is legal

Unborn are not persons

Unborn are the property of their owners (mothers)

Pro-lifers should not impose morality on the mother

The truth of the abortion matter is that everyone is seeking to impose morality. While pro-life lifers want to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, pro-abortion people are imposing death on the baby whenever an abortion is chosen. Yes, a woman has a right to control her own body, but not if she kills an innocent human being unnecessarily in the process. And we know scientifically that there is a 100% genetic human being in a woman’s womb.

Unlike slavery, which took a war to end, it’s time we peacefully ended this abortion tragedy in America.  The right to life is the right to all other rights– if you don’t have life you don’t have anything.

/by

Why are Atheists Angry at God?

Why are atheists angry at God?  Joe Carter, web editor of First Things, cites studies recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that those who don’t believe in God tend to be the people most angry with Him.  (Click here for the entire article.)

Of course, we cannot take aggregate data and apply it to specific individuals.  It may be true that atheists on average are more angry with God than believers, that that doesn’t mean atheist X is.  However, I’ve found the anger from many of the atheists with whom I’ve interacted to be quite palpable, beyond what you would expect if one were engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth.  In fact, some individual atheists admit as much.

Atheist Thomas Nagel, Professor at NYU, admits that he has a cosmic authority problem with God.  He thinks the same is true of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  When you read their books or hear their debates, it’s hard to disagree with Nagel.  Hitchens in particular calls himself an “anti-theist” and God a cosmic dictator in a “celestial North Korea.” That’s why I said in our two debates that Christopher’s attitude seems to be, “There is no God and I hate Him.” (Maybe I’m misreading Hitchens, but I don’t think so. In addition to the evidence from Christopher’s own statements, his brother Peter, who wrote “The Rage Against God,” comes to the same basic conclusion writing of Christopher’s “passion against God.”).

One has to ask, why all the anger?  To say that atheists are just angry with believers wouldn’t explain it because the study found anger with God, not his followers.  If God doesn’t exist, why be angry with Him?  The apostle Paul had an answer that he recorded in Romans 1:18-32.  But I wonder what you think.

/by

The Resurrection of Debbie

Dr. Gary Habermas, world-renowned expert on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, discusses losing his 43 year old wife to stomach cancer.  He has a perspective you might not expect.  Profound.

/by

The Dawkins Dilemma – Part 2

Those of you who read Part 1 hopefully understand my concern is that in his book “The God Delusion” Dr. Richard Dawkins has set out to divert people from any religious views they and move them into the world of atheism in what i contend is an inappropriate and inaccurate manner, especially in light of the “world-class scientific” credentials he possesses. Furthermore, I believe people making decisions based on reading this book have the absolute right to have the material presented in a fair, accurate, and honest manner.

In Part 1 I demonstrated how Dr. Dawkins manipulated the available information to skew the perceptions on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. For Part two, I’m going to jump forward to Chapter 3, Pages 118-120 in the paperback version and focus on the section entitled: “The Argument from the Scripture”.

I’m not saying that I don’t take issue with many of the things Dr. Dawkins says in the in the first two chapters (in addition to the prayer example) but I’ll save commentary on that section of the book until a future post. There are two reasons for this. First, many of the issues I have with this material revolve around the rather subtle wording and style Dr. Dawkins uses, and I think that once I point out some of the more obvious issues farther on in the book it will be easier to go back and pick those items up later.

Second. A large portion of the first two chapters of “The God Delusion” deals with the contention that there are many religious persons (including professed Christians) who have done terrible things. On that point, I agree with Dr. Dawkins, there are. However, the fact that some Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Atheists for that matter do so has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or nonexistence of God. It is, in my opinion, discussed simply to shape the readers perspective leading into subsequent portions of the book.

With that being said, let’s look at what Dr. Dawkins’ has presented in pages 118-120.

We’ll start with his comment in the middle of the page 118 which states:

“A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, followed by Herod’s massacre of the innocents. When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus’ death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem”

He goes on to say:

“In the light of this prophecy, John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: ‘Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?‘ “

To state that John is in any way inferring that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem is totally untrue. You can easily check this for yourself. The Scripture quoted above is John 7:41. However, if you go back just a few lines and check John 7:1, you see that “After That, Jesus went around Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life.” The Scriptures state that Jesus traveled regularly and just because he was most recently in Galilee doesn’t mean he wasn’t born somewhere else.

In my mind that’s equivalent to someone trying to dispute my having graduated from Ohio State simply because I moved to Virginia from my previous residence in Maryland after having lived in Ohio, Florida, Texas, and California. (But some said, Shall the Chief Engineer come out of Maryland? Hath not the resume said, that he cometh of the Ohio State Engineering Department and out of the town of Columbus in Ohio, where Woody was?)

Continuing on to pages 118 and 119.

“Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go ‘to his own city’. Joseph was ‘of the house and lineage of David’ and therefore he had to go to ‘the city of David, which is called Bethlehem’.”

Let’s check the sources. Matthew 1:20 details an angel’s words to Joseph: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife…” Mathew 1:24 further states “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.” (NIV)

So where were Joseph and Mary? While Matthew doesn’t specifically say, a good case can be made that it is somewhere other than “home” since that is where they are told to go. And, where is Joseph’s home…Bethlehem.

Now let’s look at Luke. Luke tells us both Mary (Luke 1:26) and Joseph (Luke 2:4) are in Nazareth. Luke 2:1-3 states: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So, Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David because he belonged to the house and line of David.”(NIV)

Again, let’s ask where were Joseph and Mary? Somewhere other than “home”, but this time we have an answer, Nazareth. And where did they go? To Joseph’s home…in Bethlehem.

From this we can see that what the Scriptures say concerning the location of Jesus’ birth, is nothing remotely like what Dr. Dawkins says in his book. Lets’ keep going.

Still on Page 119, Dr. Dawkins states:

“Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius – a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole – but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod’s death.”

There are a couple of items that should be discussed relative to this. For baseline purposes we will use the generally accepted date of 4 BC for Jesus’ birth.

The first item is a matter of translation. The term “governor of” may also be translated as “governing in” and Luke presents his description of Quirinius in the same manner he uses to describe Pontius Pilate’s role as a regional Procurator (i.e. not a “Governor”). (Luke 3:1) Thus it is valid to extend the time period during which Quirinius was serving in some official capacity which has been documented back to as early as 12 BC and leads to a translation describing a census that took place under the direction of Quirinius, before he formally became “Governor”.

Additionally, the Luke uses the Greek word “protos” which in addition to being translated as “first” may also be translated as “prior to” when followed by the genitive case. Thus the implication here is that Luke could also be referring to a census (commonly thought to be the “Oath Census” in the 2-4 BC time-frame) that took place prior to the 6 AD property/taxation census.

While I will agree this is somewhat of a gray area as far as clarity is concerned, Dr. Dawkins again fails to mentions any valid discussion that happens to contradict his absolute vision, thus again leading the reader away from a fair and accurate portrayal of the facts.

The final example I want to point out in this section can be found in the middle of page 120. Dr. Dawkins states:

“Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’s descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-one generations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.”

I’m sure in researching this topic that Dr. Dawkins came across (but failed to note) the widely accepted position that Matthew traces back the lineage of Joseph while Luke traces back Mary’s lineage. No wonder there is little overlap between the two. Also note that Matthew didn’t say there were 28 generations in total from David to Jesus, but rather 14 from David to the exile to Babylon and 14 after the Babylonian exile ended to Jesus.

As for the Messiah being descended from David, that blood relationship is provided through Mary’s ancestry. Joseph, while not the biological father of Jesus, is considered the legal father, and according to the Jewish law, passes on the royal and legal family ancestral link to David and Solomon.

In Part 1 of this post, I showed you how Dr. Dawkins had selectively manipulated the “prayer experiment” to fit the needs of his agenda. In this part, I hope you have seen how he continues to manipulate the facts in a manner the leads people to his agenda.

As with Part 1, I ask only that you take the time to look over this from a neutral point, think for yourself, and ask yourself the following questions relative to The God Delusion:

1.      Am I being told the truth or am I being given a rhetoric which is unfairly skewed to lead me (and others) into potentially life-changing decisions?

2.      Does Dr. Dawkins (a world-class scientist) present you with a fair, accurate, and ethical document on which to base my life decisions or is he unfairly misleading me into making the decision he wants?

Let me know what you think.

/by
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENCE?

Is Intelligent Design Science?

, , ,

The purpose of this post is not to prove that Intelligent Design is true, nor that it is superior to naturalistic alternatives, but simply to raise awareness over some of the lines of evidence where Intelligent Design seems to be science. Let me also reject in advance those who dismiss ID with casual comments like, “There is no evidence whatsoever for ID,” “ID is creationism in a tuxedo, but still has no ticket for the party,” or “ID is no more scientific than astrology” or the like. These aren’t necessarily ridiculous positions to hold, but they require a lot more substance than most claimants (that I’ve encountered) are usually willing to muster. ID does not necessarily deserve credit or acceptance, but if satisfies the criteria for admission into scientific consideration, then one cannot in good-intellectual-honesty dismiss it out of hand and still claim to be science-minded.

First, ID employs a theory drawn from science, namely, information theory (see, Dembski’s The Design Inference)–information theory is a staple in SETI, Forensics, Archeology, Cryptology, Anthropology, etc.

Second, the problem with ID is not whether information theory is scientific, but whether astronomy, biology, and chemistry are valid fields of applying information theory. Properly casting the nature of this debate is key to understanding the lines of argumentation. Those rebuking ID for elaborating “information theory” should instead focus their argument on the illegitimacy of applying information theory to fields like astronomy, biology, and chemistry.

Third, ID does achieve claims that are, at least on a low level, falsifiable. For example, the Bacterial flagellum may be irreducibly complex if no more basic alternative-use formulations such as a (Type III secretory system [syringe type rod]) can be found which are constitutionally older than the flagellum. Applying ID theory to the flagellum renders a testable prediction, namely the falsifiable theory that if the flagellum is irreducibly complex, then there will never be discovered a simpler same-function form nor an older alternative-function form.

Fourth, neither naturalism nor materialism has been, historically, a necessary precondition for doing science, given the preponderance of religious scientists throughout history. It may be argued, weakly, that if one allows for supernatural causes, one is discouraged or distracted from the hard task of finding natural, reliable, or material causes for natural phenomenon. While that possibility makes sense, it has not been the reality. Despite there being many non-theists (i.e.: no kind of God-belief) in the sciences, there are still a host of theists who have little trouble employing a methodological naturalism for much of their work while suspending that assumption where it might bias the data (such as, dismissing evidence for a miracle claim simply because naturalism demands dismissing all miracle claims). Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-overlapping Magisterium is a nice theory to safely quarantine religion and science from effecting each other, but both make metaphysical claims on history, humanity, and the natural world. And many scientists exist in the overlap for, despite the claims of casual anti-ID theorist, these science-minded theists can readily admit the possibility of an active God without descending into a “magical” irrational view of nature.

Fifth, ID does bear fruit in further predictions and study. We can, for example, study and apply irreducible complexity theory anywhere in biology to see where it fits and where it does not. At a minimum, such applications of ID force evolutionary alternatives to mount a more comprehensive/compelling set of unintelligent mechanisms since the known unintelligent mechanisms fail pretty badly on many cases. Pure evolutionary theory, for example, has the difficulty of explaining the reality of “true belief” given the non-intelligent mechanical causes of Newtonian forces as it’s only physical forces, or, natural selection and genetic variations as it’s overriding biological forces. Sure one can appeal to conceptual models and thought experiments to argue for an evolutionary answer to this problem Plantinga calls “the Evolutionary Argument Against naturalism,” but that effort is bound to circularity, begging the question, since naturalistic answers ostensibly presuppose that intelligence arises from non-intelligence though that is precisely the premise needing defense.

For another example, ID predicts that the more irreducibly complex and higher specified complexity of something, the less capable we will be at demonstrating a viable evolutionary account. By testing evolutionary mechanisms against a given object–such as the Giraffe’s neck or the woodpecker’s tongue–we can see, according to the prediction, whether the known mechanisms of evolution easily explain it or not. If the Giraffe’s neck, which supposedly is irreducibly complex, then there would be no immediate and demonstrable explanation from naturalism for its appearance. If the Giraffe’s neck is slightly or greatly complex, and irreducible in either case, then evolutionary theory will have an easier or harder time, respectively, providing a viable account from natural causes that does not betray the kind of incrementalism espoused by Darwin nor, if one is okay with being in the scientific minority, the punctuated equilibrium espoused later. Remember though, that both sets of theories have their own burden of proof whereby they ought to exceed the (low) test of “explanatory” sufficiency and reach some kind of testability.

Still a third example of how ID is fruitful with testable predictions, ID predicts that high-information content within organisms can devolve, but does not greatly evolve. Hence, we can subject microorganisms to generations of forced mutations to see if any give rise to sustainable gains in specified complexity. Fourth, ID presents tremendous applications for the search for extra-terrestrials (i.e., non-human intelligences), and reapplication of information theory in forensics, cryptology, computer programming, Artificial Intelligence, and archeology. Fifth, and implied above, ID also presents a valuable frame of reference for critiquing the monopoly of evolutionary theory (such that many evolutionists are not aware of any explanatory gaps or weaknesses within evolutionary theory). And what is science if not a free-exchange of alternative theories and findings achieving the market-capitalism of ideas whereby poorly framed hypotheses can be honed and improved, or ground down into oblivion.

Sixth, it is not very scientific to put faith in evolutionary theory to IN THE FUTURE resolve present ignorance. Evolution-of-the-gaps is no less dogmatic and faith-based than is God of the gaps. And frankly, a great deal of force behind the rejection of ID is fueled by faith in evolutionary theory to explain aspects of nature that are yet unknown. Though evolution, according to typical evolutionists, has been well verified on many accounts, scientists pride themselves on respecting no authorities and refraining from all faith or dogma in place of their science. Where evolution has not been DEMONSTRATED to explain a certain phenomenon, it remains a theory, or, at best a hypothesis. But any use of said hypothesis prior to experimentation risks being philosophy or even theology. Scientists are more than allowed to do philosophy; they just have to sacrifice the authority and credibility of “Science-says-so-and-so” when they are philosophizing.

Seventh, NO scientific claim is DEDUCTIVELY verifiable–as that would entail the kind of certainty achieved only in logic and math. It would not be fair to demand of Intelligent Design a degree of certainty that the rest of science rarely if ever achieves. All scientific claims, even the strongest ones, are limited to INDUCTIVE probability never deductive certainty since they are fundamentally empirical (not rationalistic or formalistic in their metaphysics or epistemology).

Eighth, any theoretical streams within science are deemed “scientific” though they conceptually and practically defy testability (whether verification or falsification)–just as Theoretical Physics like String Theory.

Ninth, whatever else “science” means, there would seem to be something inherently unscientific about disqualifying what may be true and treat any related questions as uninteresting since they are not bound by naturalism. Science should not be too proud to investigate the mating habits of insects nor the possibility of non-human intelligence.

Tenth, science itself could not exist without philosophy of science to establish it’s nature and parameters. Truth be told, ID tests the demarcation problem for Science though many scientists themselves may have never known there was any problem demarcating Natural Science from other fields of study like theology or philosophy. Scientists hate to admit this, as there is a generally negative view of metaphysics entire even though every scientist is, by the nature of the field, a part-time metaphysician. To illustrate, it was the philosophy of science that gave birth to the scientific method which gave modern birth science. This point is relevant because the natural sciences rightly incorporate under the title of “science” things that were never purely “science. The scientific method was not hatched in a lab but in the mind of philosophical-theological-scientists. We would sacrifice too much if we cut off any “philosophy” or “theology” as non-science simply because it is not testable in a lab as that would forbid the scientific method itself–which is philosophy, and not itself testable within the parameters of science.

Eleventh, it is a genetic fallacy and a fallacy of association to fault ID for having young-Earthers, religious people (who are presumed “biased”), or otherwise unliked characters among its members. We should remember that early chemists are largely indistinguishable from alchemists–yet we would not want to dismiss their work as “unscientific” just because they were still dabbling in pseudoscience. We would not want to morally fault science for its association among Nazi experimenters in WWII. Abuse does not bar use. And if the ID is abused or genetically tainted by some of its practitioners, we still have the theory itself to deal with lest we mistakenly burn the message because of the messenger. Conversely, we cannot rightly fault the findings of atheistic humanists in science because they, perhaps, have an anti-theological bias or might be “swayed” by their irreligion or humanism or atheism. Biased people can still do good science provided; there’s is not an overriding bias.

In conclusion, a compelling case can be made that ID is indeed a science and therefore, it deserves a hearing among science-minded people.

/by

The Dawkins Dilemma – Part 1

It is the ultimate responsibility of the scientific and engineering communities to convey information in a clear, honest and accurate manner. To do otherwise is not only unethical but can endanger the health and welfare of people as many of the decisions we make both as individuals and as a society depend on the “facts” reported to us.

While all young scientists and engineers are taught the criticality of this concept, there are far too many cases where publications by allegedly educated, highly reputable professionals contain “facts and conclusions” that are either contrary to or in direct opposition to the supporting evidence.

One might wonder why anyone would anyone would risk publishing such information, especially in light of the peer review process that is supposedly employed in the review of such documents. The general reasons this occurs can include:

  1.  Inexperience or honest errors and omission
  2. Carelessness
  3. Deliberate manipulation of the data to support the author’s personal agenda (fame, greed, power, control, etc)

The unfortunate thing is that the greater the author’s education, experience, and skill, the more likely that a publication that repeatedly contains such erroneous treatment of the facts tends to fall into the last category.  As the old saying goes, “figures lie and liars figure”.

Such is the dilemma faced by Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion”, whether to accurately and impartially portray the facts surrounding the items he discusses in this book in the hope that they provide support for his position or, to manipulate them in a manner that forces them to support his stated mission states “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” regardless of whether or not they actually do.

Now Dr. Dawkins has impressive credentials. He earned a PhD in Biology from Balliol College, Oxford in 1966. He has served as an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, a lecturer in zoology and fellow of New College at Oxford University 1970-1990, and in 1995 he became Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.

Dr. Dawkins’ awards are numerous, well deserved, and include the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal, the Michael Faraday Award, the Kistler Prize, and the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. He has been awarded several honorary degrees, topped “Prospect” magazine’s 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, granted Fellowship on the Royal Society and the Royal Society for Literature, and has authored numerous award winning and bestselling books.

There is little question as to the education, knowledge, skills, qualifications, and expertise possessed by Dr. Dawkins. This effectively eliminates Category 1, listed above, as the cause of inaccuracies in “The God Delusion”.

I’ve also eliminated carelessness as a cause since Dr. Dawkins himself notes the critiques of “various drafts” by a qualified (but hardly impartial) panel of experts, states that his wife read “the entire book aloud to me at two different stages in its development so I could apprehend very directly how it might seem to a reader other than myself”, and indicates that in the paperback edition he has “taken the opportunity to make a few minor improvements, and correct some small errors that readers of the book have kindly drawn to my attention.”

Therefore, one can only categorize the omissions, manipulations, and misrepresentation of the facts Dr. Dawkins presents in “The God Delusion” as falling into the third category listed above.

So, what are some of the issues in “The God Delusion” (Note: In discussing this I will only be using the paperback edition). Well, before addressing this, let’s establish some ground rules.

  1. In this and subsequent postings I will base comments only on documented evidence. While I won’t make philosophical judgments, I will reserve the right to present evidence that may be as speculative as that presented by Dr. Dawkins. This will be done only to offer you the opportunity to question for yourself the validity of Dr. Dawkins’ statements.
  2. I have nothing personal against Dr. Dawkins. I assume he is a good man who is grounded in his beliefs. I do, however, believe he needs to be held to responsible for his lack of scientific and research professionalism in presenting the information in “The God Delusion”.
  3.  I ask only that you be fair and honest in determining whether or not the information contained within “The God Delusion” is presented in a reasonable and accurate manner. This is a responsibility Dr. Dawkins has to his audience and a right you have as the reader, especially if you are making life changing decisions based on it.

So let’s start by looking at Dr. Dawkins’ treatment of prayer…

On pages 85-90, Dr. Dawkins discusses “The Great Prayer Experiment”, a $2.4 million dollar study funded by the Templeton Foundation performed under the direction of Dr. Herbert Benson, “a cardiologist at the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston”.  This study was officially known as “The Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer” or more simply “STEP”.

Dr. Dawkins starts this section of his book with a very brief mention of the study done by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton before jumping directly to the Templeton Foundation study. He describes the basic setup and conduction of the experiment along with what he portrays as the “clear cut” results. Dr. Dawkins states:

“Dr. Benson and his team monitored 1,802 patients at 6 hospitals, all of whom received coronary bypass surgery. The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 received prayer and didn’t know it. Group 2 (the control group) received no prayers and didn’t know it. Group 3 received prayers and did know it.”

The results of the study, as Dr. Dawkins correctly notes is that there was no statistically difference between Group 1 (received prayer and didn’t know it) and Group 2 (received no prayers and didn’t know it). Surprisingly, Group 3 (received prayers and did know it) had a statistically significant higher incidence of complications.

I won’t present everything Dr. Dawkins states on these pages, you can read that for yourself assuring the accuracy of his words. Also, in keeping with Ground Rule 1, I will not present any opinion on the effects of intercessory prayer. I will only let the facts speak for themselves and let you determine if Dr. Dawkins if presenting an accurate view of the study and giving you facts upon which you should be basing life decisions.

First a little history. While Dr. Dawkins has noted only two studies (Galton and Benson), a 2008 article by Dr. Larry Dossey in discussing intercession prayer experiments in the November/December 2008 issue of Explore, The Journal of Science and Healing, states:

“We can identify around two dozen major-controlled studies in humans, approximately half of which show statistically significant results favoring the intervention group toward whom healing intentions were extended.”

Note, I’m not saying prayer intervention works, only that Dr. Dawkins did not report the existence of any of studies other than Galton and Benson. In fact, the Benson study is considered by many as only the 2nd best known intercessory prayer experiment following a 1988 study by cardiologist Randolph Byrd. The Byrd study (cited as a reference in the Benson study) showed a 5-7% benefit for those receiving prayer (vs. compared to the 7-8% considered statistically significant for Group 3 in the STEP study).

Now as for the study itself, Dr Dawkins incorrect categorizes the groups as “Group 1 received prayer and didn’t know it. Group 2 (the control group) received no prayers and didn’t know it. Group 3 received prayers and did know it.” In reality Benson et al describe the groups as:

  • Group 1 – Received prayer, informed that they may or may not receive prayer
  • Group 2 – Received no prayer, informed that they may or may not receive prayer
  • Group 3 – Received prayers and did know it

Now this seems like a small difference, it can affect the results (i.e. receiving or not receiving prayer and know knowing about it vs. knowing that it is a possibility). In fact, an editorial by Mitchell Krucoff et al that was published in the same issue of the American Heart Journal in which Benson’s STEP paper appeared notes that:

“Patients enrolled in double-blinded arms might still be inclined to guess or even believe they know what their treatment assignment actually was. In elective percutaneous coronary intervention patients enrolled in a double-blinded prayer study, about two thirds of patients not actually assigned prayer believed that they were.”

He went on to state:

“‘Constraints on how intercessory prayer was provided’ excluded all but a handful of prayer groups and may have affected the actual prayers performed by these groups.”

Further, Dossey (in the publication cited above) states that:

“Surveys show that around 80% to 90% of Americans pray regularly when they are well and it can be assumed even more pray when they are sick. Faced with the possible prospect of being denied prayer in the study, the subjects in A [Group 1] and B [Group 2] may therefore have redoubled their personal prayers for themselves. Thus a paradox may have resulted in which A and B received more prayer – not less – than C [Group 3]”.

Also, Manoj Jain, one of the original authors of STEP stated in a 2006 Harvard medical School news release:

“One caveat [of STEP] is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer.”

Now, in discussing the statistically significant higher incidence of complications in Group 3 Dr. Dawkins casually comments:

“Was God doing a bit of smiting, to show his disapproval of the whole barmy enterprise? It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: ‘performance anxiety’, as the experimenter put it.”

Well, in the American Heart Journal editorial cited above Krucoff et al take the experimenters to task by stating:

“While presenting these results clearly and noting them in discussion, the investigators take an almost casual approach toward any explanation, stating only that ‘may have been a chance finding’”.

Ariel et al really drive this home in the May 2008 issue of The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in which they note that the patients in Group 3 “which had the highest rate of complications, may have been predisposed to do worse”. They state:

“When compared with the other two groups, this group had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema and chronic bronchitis), a higher incidence of smoking history, a higher rate of three-vessel coronary bypass surgery, and a lower rate of beta-blocker use prior to surgery.”

and conclude that:

“For a fair trial of prayer, the study should have established a level playing field between all three groups through proper randomization, such that no group was worse off than any other going into the study.”

As I noted before, I’m not trying to promote my own beliefs on intercessory prayer. Rather, I’m simply pointing out that the “evidence” cited so glowingly by Dr. Dawkins is, in fact, nothing like he has portrayed it to be. As a scientist routinely involved in both writing and reviewing papers on such studies, it is clearly apparent that he has manipulated the information to further his stated agenda, i.e. “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

“The God Delusion” has, I believe, sold over two million copies. Unfortunately, Dr. Dawkins has let his disdain for organized religion skew his scientific objectivity. Regardless of your beliefs on this and other topics addressed by Dr. Dawkins, you as the reader have the right to a fair and impartial presentation of the facts on which to base any future decisions you may make, decisions Dr. Dawkins is clearly trying to direct for you.

In the next installment, I’ll give you some more examples of Dr. Dawkins’ misleading presentation of factual information from “The God Delusion”.

/by