An Atheist Reacts to My Book Review

Image result for images of grandmother fish

This blog is on fire this morning, largely due to a little book review I wrote back on Nov. 28 of last year, of a Darwinist fairy tale for children entitled Grandmother Fish ( ). And this morning it’s all over Facebook.

I received a comment from a reader who has been “teaching him [her son] critical thinking”… at two years old. He watches PBS, and his parents have warned him about a certain kind of people–us, that is: we who believe in God. “[W]e frequently mention that some people don’t like to think and believe stories that aren’t real.”

Great Caesar’s ghost. How do you even answer that? It’s one of those times that you run into such blindness, such foolishness, that it leaves you plumb speechless.

Having disposed of religion as a form of child abuse, the reader goes on to declare, “This boy will know where we really came from.”

From fish? All right, then–where did the fish come from?

Darwinism has never been able to provide even a plausible explanation for the origin of life itself. The latest hot theory is that rocks and minerals got rained on and somehow became alive.

Believing stories that aren’t real?

Oh, well–who needs the Bible, when you’ve got PBS?


As I search for hymns each morning, to post here, I often encounter comments by atheists who say they “hate religion,” yatta-yatta, but they really love the music.

There is a certain wistfulness in this, like that of a child standing outside a candy store, looking in at what he cannot have. But of course there is no one keeping the atheist out of God’s candy store but the atheist himself, hard of heart and hardest on himself.

Dudes, you can come in any time you want, and we will welcome you! And wait’ll you learn that God’s grace is a free gift, yours for the claiming.

Or you can just stay outside and listen to atheist music, whatever that might be.

20 comments on “An Atheist Reacts to My Book Review

  1. Having atheists in my family, I’m at a loss as to how to respond, too. And it’s even more baffling to me because of the Christian upbringing. How can a person who has known the salvation that Our Lord provided then turn to atheism?

    1. It’s extremely simple. There’s no proof that Christianity is true. Even you believe this, correct? Otherwise why is faith necessary?

    2. May I say respectfully, you are quite mistaken. As a child, I had faith. As a child of The Living God I have had many prayers directly answered – because I had faith!

    3. There’s no way we can enrich people who insist on being poor. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t do it, it doesn’t get done.

    4. Why faith? Without faith it is impossible to please to please God (Heb 11:16). Everyone has faith in something. Even the evolutionist needs faith to believe in an unproved theory.

    5. Yes I’m aware the bible says good requires faith. That’s part of my point. The difference between an atheist and a believer is that an atheist has had the simple realisation that faith is not a reliable way to find the truth of a matter.

      In reply to your “faith in an unproven theory” comment; this is a common misunderstanding. The term “theory” has a different meaning in scientific nomenclature. I’d imagine you don’t have a problem with the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. Evolution is one of the most rigorously confirmed theories in science, drawing multiple lines of evidence from many different fields of investigation.

      Moreover, I don’t really see what your objection is. Plenty of Christians accept evolution as the method of God’s creation.

    6. The difference between Christians and atheists is what they believe in. To say that the latter have no beliefs is a very silly thing to say.
      Actually, my objection to Darwinism is not primarily religious. I only object to it because 1) it can’t be observed in nature, 2) it can’t be tested, 3) it provides no explanation for the origin of life, 4) it contains serious flaws in logic, and 5) it’s usually a philosophical hangout for people who hate my God, whom I love.
      Other than that, it’s just swell.

    7. Who says atheists have no beliefs? The only difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist doesn’t believe the claims that a god exists. In the most well-thought cases, this is due to an acknowledgement that sound evidence is a better basis for belief than faith is. People who advocate faith are happy to use evidence and reasoning in other areas of their life, but for some reason this important question of gods doesn’t deserve the same level of rigor.

      1. Evolution has been observed.
      2. See 1.
      3. Neither does the theory of gravity. Evolution isn’t an explanation for the origin of life. It describes the development of life into different species. Investigation into the actual origin of life is called abiogenesis. It’s a different matter and we may never find the answer. That’s no reason to make one up.
      4. Such as?
      5. Perhaps. That doesn’t really invalidate the science though.

    8. Who observed evolution? When?
      Actually, “abiogenesis” refers to the conjecture that life arose from non-living materials. It is not a term for investigation into the origin of life.
      It describes a process that atheistic science’s ideology requires.
      As for logical holes in the theory:
      As a forelimb “evolves” into a wing, say, there must be a point at which it is useless as either a forelimb or a wing. Natural selection would then scrap that experiment, eh?
      Very simply put, say a mutation causes a mother Ambulocetus to give birth to a baby that’s more whale than Ambulocetus. When this animal reaches sexual maturity, where does it find a mate like itself? Always assuming the mother Ambulocetus knows how to take care of this particular mutant.
      I suspect that nothing I could ever say would ever convince you to entertain the slightest doubt of your religious belief. Certainly nothing you can say will erode mine.

    9. It still requires faith to accept something that has not been proven. For all the “rigorous confirmation” is still remains a theory. Evolution, as Darwin described, cannot even stand up to the Scientific Method, nor can it explain how life came from inert matter. You can talk about all the evidence you want, but no one was there to confirm what happened at the beginning. To say that it requires no faith to believe in evolution is disingenuous. If anything, it requires more faith than believing in a creator.

      Christians who accept evolution are in the minority. It is not supported by the Bible or by the fossil record. What is supported is the sudden emergence of life (i.e. the Cambrian explosion), which is better explained by the creation model.

    10. Yes, Lee, it does. The additional problem arises because they have passed this along to their children, who are now adults with the same unbelief.

  2. I am reminded once more of the book title; You Can Lead An Atheist
    to Truth, but you can’t make him think. All that is required is a little
    “thinking” with observation, listening to the witness inside, which the Almighty has mercifully placed there, (Romans 1), but if you willfully
    rebel, then only the mercy of God in answer to prayers of others for them
    can melt those hard hearts and open the willfully blind eyes.

  3. I with you, Lee. It makes me really sad for the child(ren). Then I find comfort knowing that God’s Spirit is not slowed or hampered by an atheist parent’s teachings. He grabs tons of those kids out. I’m going to pray for them today — all the babies and children of atheists who tell them God isn’t real. They are the fools, and God is up to the challenge. 🙂

  4. Like Puddleglum said, ‘And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.’

  5. Oh boy! Here we go! – our universities hard at work. Maybe Joe Collidge isn’t so far off with his ‘antenners’.

    Here’s a portion of the article:

    “Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species which became extinct 33,000 years ago.

    His scheme is reminiscent of Jurassic Park but, while in the film dinosaurs were created in a laboratory, Professor Church’s ambitious plan requires a human volunteer”

Leave a Reply