Prominent
misotheist Richard Dawkins has long argued (e.g. in his book The God Delusion) that belief in God is propagated through
“indoctrination”, especially of children.1 But Dawkins is having to face up to some awkward
facts. Awkward for Dawkins that is, because the facts point to children recognising
that living things are designed, i.e. nature originated at the hand of
a Creator God.2,3
For example, researchers at Oxford University (at which Dawkins himself was until
recently the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of
Science) have earlier reported finding children who, when questioned, express their
understanding that there is a Creator, without having had any such instruction from
parents or teachers. As Dr Olivera Petrovich, who lectures in Experimental Psychology
at Oxford, explained in an interview with Science and Spirit:
My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t
think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’
So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’—Dr
Olivera Petrovich, Oxford University
“I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing
them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects
and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects
at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and
at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With
the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished
the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation
into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so
we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate,
quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions,
consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly
go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g.,
‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’).
This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto
— doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all.
So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s
an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience.
My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t
think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’
So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God
made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding.”4
Today, nearly a decade since Petrovich’s study, there is now a “preponderance
of scientific evidence” affirming that “children believe in God even
when religious teachings are withheld from them”.3
Dr Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and
Mind says that children have “a predisposition to see the natural world as
designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.”
He cited one study where young children who were asked why the first bird existed
replied “to make nice music” and “because it makes the world look
nice”.3
children … see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some
kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose
However, Barrett and other evolutionists are endeavouring to claim it as “an
evolutionarily useful skill”. That is, it’s something that evolution
hard-wired into our brain. (A very common fallback position for evolutionists, which,
unfortunately for evolutionary theory, completely destroys their claims of rationality—see,
e.g., How your brain creates God? and
C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts.)
According to Barrett, it is evolution that explains our “predisposition”
to believe the world was created, and also the widespread public resistance to believing
evolution.
“Children’s normally and naturally developing minds make them prone
to believe in divine creation and intelligent design,” says Barrett. “In
contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.”
But then, how does he know that his own evolutionary belief is not due
to its truth but because he evolved a predisposition to believe it? See this amusing
clip from British comedian John Cleese:
Unfortunately, a barrage of evolutionary pronouncements continue to dominate print
and airwaves, as if “Darwin” is now established fact—signed, sealed
and delivered. However, New Scientist, despite its overt evolutionary bias and proclamations,
deserves some credit at least for confronting Richard Dawkins with this challenge:
“If children have an innate belief in god [sic], however, where does that
leave the indoctrination hypothesis?”2
But Dawkins glossed over the difficulty as if the contradictory facts weren’t
awkward at all. “I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed
to believe in invisible gods—I always was. But I also find the indoctrination
hypothesis plausible. The two influences could, and I suspect do, reinforce one
another,” he said.
Such wordplay doublespeak hardly does the former Professor for the Public Understanding
of Science credit. But it does explain why evolutionists are so keen on
indoctrinating students, even if it
involves deception. New Scientist then related that Dawkins
went on to suggest that “evolved gullibility” is behind children’s
widespread (cross-cultural) belief in a Creator.
Au contraire, if there’s gullibility in evidence here, it’s
not being demonstrated by the children, who can recognise
Good Design when they see it.5
Readers’ comments:
James Mare, United States, 16 July 2009
Excellent article and discovery!! Proof that evolutionists even lost their belief
in God and a Supreme Creator through spiritual mutation!?
Carlton Rader, South Africa, 16 July 2009
Great article! This is yet another wonderful example that confirms what the Bible
teaches in Romans 1:18–20. It is the same for every human being. What the children
observe via their senses only reminds them of what they already “a priori” know,
e.g., that there is a God, a Creator who made all things. God put this understanding
in our minds so humankind is without excuse.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati presents case after case for amazing design in the living world,
and demolishes theories of chemical evolution of the first life. Yet unlike many
in the prominent Intelligent Design Movement, he is up-front about the truth of
the Bible. This enables him to refute many anti-design arguments, and answer the
key question: ‘Who is the Designer?’ (High School–Adult) 260 pages.
For a comprehensive compendium of design evidence in living
things, Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s book By Design is just the thing for the thinking person’s
library. And don’t just take our word for it—see
this review. Return to text.
