Unweaving the Rainbow
(Chapters 1 to 6)
Page
1
I do not place the same weight on the moment of conception as the “moralists and
theologians” mentioned by Dr. Dawkins. Christ pointed to birth rather than conception as the
defining moment. See for detailed argument on this point my web site: www.Gsimmonds.com
under The Unborn Child. Christ referred to Judas saying that it would have been better for him
had he not been born, not better if he had never been conceived (Matthew 26:24).
5
The question as to the object of life is an important one. The Bible has an answer as we
find in Revelation 4:11. However, this involves reorienting ourselves: making God the object of
our lives and not ourselves. However, so long is one has an atheistic view of life this is not
possible.
7
What Dr. Dawkins says here about squid is one of those things which make one
wonder how Dr. Dawkins can continue to think the way he does about the fantastic complexity
of life on this planet.
9
“Precisely crafted sequences”. Immediately one reads these words the question arises
“Who was the clever craftsman that set up the sequences ?”
12
Talking of time, the incoming of Christ was precisely timed according to Paul (Galatians
4:4). However, he did not live so long ago as we tend to imagine, perhaps 100 generations
(assuming 20 years for a generation ) . A person today who lives to be 100 can quite conceivably
see 9 generations (4 forwards, 4 backwards and his/her own).
21
“Philosophical difficulties”. One can get tied up in knots about truth and
falsehood. In practice things are often partly true and partly false or true in one sense and not in
another. As has been said: “There is a particle of truth in every error. That is what makes it so
dangerous”. See for instance what the serpent said in Genesis 3:5 (compare that with Genesis
3:22) There is more wisdom in these simple passages of Scripture than meets the eye on first
reading.
24
This world is not just a place where people live merely to survive long enough to
pass on the information in their genes. It is a place where they can enjoy the sublime (Dr.
Dawkins’ word) and the ridiculous and a good many other things aswell. We must not get
obsessed with the idea of survival as I think Dr. Dawkins would agree, any more than we should,
like the so-called Exclusive Brethren, get obsessed with the idea of separation from evil or the
Puritans with purity !
27
I have read L. Ron Hubbard ’s book Dianetics , which did not enlighten me in any
way. It did though make me wonder if the idea of a foetus in the womb being a person in its own
right came from scientology or was at least boosted by it.
28
I have not read the Harry Potter books but I have been led to believe that they fill
children’s minds with the idea of magic and therefore get away from reality. I have for years had
the thought in my mind that we are heading for a time when what was thought to have been
banished by the light of science will return like the evil spirits in Matthew 12:45.
Mr C. A.
Coates writing in the first half of the last century said: “The materialist of yesterday is to-day the
disciple of weird mysticism, to-morrow he will be deceived by the antichrist, and will worship the
beast” (Outline of Revelation p. 120).
29
Poltergeists (noisy spirits) do exist, but exactly what they are and why they do
what they do has, so far as I am aware, never been ascertained. I have known at least one reliable
witness who has testified from experience to their existence, so whatever they are they are not
just figments of someone’s imagination.
33
Crop circles. They exist and I have seen them in the area where I live. How they
come into existence I do not know. Clever people may copy them so that it can be said that they
are all hoaxes, but it is remote that they have all come into existence in this way. It is strange that
no one to my knowledge has caught any hoaxers red handed.
39
To me science is OK in its place. Solomon could say: “It is the glory of God to
conceal a thing; but the glory of kings is to search out a thing” (Proverbs 25:2). Scientists are the
kings of today and no doubt most get a thrill when they find something new to science or find a
convincing solution to a scientific problem. Incidentally Dr. Dawkins mentions Wordsworth and
Lamb. Curiously a few years ago I came in contact with one of Wordsworth’s descendants and
an Uncle of mine by marriage was a relative of the essayist. He was the editor of a trade magazine
which suggests to me that he may have inherited some of the Lamb’s literary ability.
42
Most of us have some interest in science. When I was a small child I used to look
at the Sun through my almost closed fingers and found the Sun’s rays broke up in my hand to
show all the colours of the rainbow. It was a wonder I did not damage my eyesight. As to the
rainbow itself, when we were being taught about the rainbow I once asked my teacher why it was
the shape it was. All the answer I got was: “Good question; next question” ! I never did get a
clear answer to my question though I have since been told, rightly or wrongly that it had
something to do with the shape of the earth ! The rainbow, incidentally, is a relaxing thing;
thunder and lightening are exhilarating or frightening things. Man has the ability to appreciate
these things and to be emotionally affected by them. (Dr. Dawkins’ explanation of the rainbow
on pages 46 and onwards is interesting and helpful)
45
Nature is normally economical. Living organisms have a good deal in common ,
this makes for economy. This to a believer shows that the one who created the universe used
wisdom in its creation. Put another way, nature demonstrates wisdom. (see, for instance,
Proverbs 3:19/20). The writer of Ecclesiastes demonstrates that wisdom is profitable to give
success, pointing to the benefit of the sharpening of an axe (chapter 10:10). (Incidentally the
impression left on me is that Dr Peter Atkins who is referred to here has shown dignity in his
relatively recent marital problems)
58
Talking of colour blindness one ascertained once that a member of staff in the
office where I worked was colour blind and added for years red (negative) and black (positive)
entries together with the result that reconciliations at the end of the year were always somewhat
out. It was years before the reason was found !
68
“Sequestered in evolution”. This assumes as always that the parts of the human
ear evolved from something else. To a creationist it is just that the maker used economical ways
of making things (see comments regarding page 45 above).
69
“Cunningly pitched”. One would say wisely pitched. (again see comments
regarding page 45 above).
77
“Crowning feat of the human brain”. Presumably Dr. Dawkins is saying this
because our supposed ancestor (a sort of ape) cannot (or not to any significant extent) weave and
unweave speech sounds. Whether there are not other things that the human brain can do which
are as a great a feat may be arguable. There is still a lot we do not know about the human brain.
79
I know that some would consider me something of a Philistine when it comes to
things like music. Keats piece does not do anything for me. I have heard nightingales sing and
their singing in the night was haunting to start with but one soon got used to it. However, one
wonders why some would reduce it all to a matter of survival. It may have that aspect to it so far
as its own species are concerned, but presumably not from the viewpoint of humanity who enjoy
the singing.
81
Drugs are man made and “the products of comparatively crude trial-and-error
testing”.
However, if we understand Dr. Dawkins correctly he thinks the Nightingale’s song
was the result of trial-and-error in the natural world: the survivor of any number of attempts at
singing.
83
It appears from the quote at the head of chapter 5 that Dr. Dawkins appreciates the
value of Scripture passages even if he doesn’t believe it is the Word of God in any sense.
97
“Junk DNA”. Does this build up over time ? If so, would it not provide a rough
guide to the antiquity of the species ?
106
“Odds”. Making odds a ground for dismissing a case is like someone I know
dismissing everything I said because I mentioned a relative’s Christian name and one of his
nicknames, but not the more usual ni ckname that was used. One would not reject what Dr.
Dawkins teaches just because one can pick holes in it, and one would not expect him to do so
with me.
108
Generally the traditional testimony of two or three independent witnesses is as
good as any. However, forensic evidence may be useful and amount to an additional witness,
though relying on it alone may be dangerous. Often a Father’s testimony may be useful where
his Son is involved (Christ quizzed a Father in such a case - Mark 9:21). One wonders whether
any testimony of Mr. Kevin Huntley in the prosecution of Ian Huntley was taken into account at
the trial of the latter. I have a good deal of personal experience of police and medics making
wrong or defective judgements in the case of one of my own Sons through not listening to me.
115
Yes, traditional religions are declining in the West, but as Dr. Dawkins says they
are being replaced by the weird and wonderful. See my quote from Charles Coates regarding
page 28.
117
“The birth of Jesus”. See my comment regarding page 12.
123
Talking of graphology, my boss for many years used to use it for staff recruiting
purposes. How much truth there is in it I would not like to say. Presumably people with slow
minds tend to write slowly and have probably clear but babyish handwriting. However those with
quick brains probably think faster than they can write with probably adverse effects on their
handwriting. Whether this is always so I would doubt, but by and large it is probably true, though
other factors may affect ones handwriting such as ones hand and brain co-ordination and so on.
Astrology is an even more dubious source of information. Isaiah
denigrates the interpreters of the heavens (astrologers) and the observers of the stars
(prognosticators) (Isaiah 47:13). This passage at least shows that astrology is an ancient practice
and certainly not thought much of by Isaiah.
124
Talking of horoscopes I have never I think looked at mine. I was brought up to
keep clear of such things.
125
It seems that man needs an object of worship and that if it is not the true God it is
something else, whether this be an animal, the Sun or a block of wood, or today often some so-
called entertainment superstar or political figure.
126
Presumably David Frost was just doing his job in presenting a so-called
paranormal television show (he has a house in the village where I until recently lived) though I
suspect he would not have got Richard Dawkins vote for a knighthood if it were asked for ! Apart
from actual conjuring tricks one must allow that there are unexplained forces and means of
communication such as telepathy (thought transference) which should not be dismissed out of
hand. At least one of my children at junior school took part in a telepathy experiment which
apparently worked. There was no question of charlatans being involved.
129
When I get to this page I find that Dr. Dawkins is saying pretty much what I have
said regarding page 126. Where I fundamentally differ from Dr. Dawkins is that I am satisfied
there is mind (intelligence) in the universe other than and greater than man’s. I am not a
materialist which is what Dr. Dawkins appears to be. Where I used to work perfectly rational
people had psychical experiences which I could relate as well one my Brother had when doing
his national service. An aunt of mine dismissed the latter (a ghostly apparition) as moonshine, but
I quizzed a number of witnesses and I am well satisfied that they were neither deluded nor
deliberately making up stories. The essentials of the story are that my brother being in bed was
aroused (probably around 11 p.m.) by a soldier who had come into the dormitory saying that
there was a ghost in the corridor and wanted my brother to go and have a look. My brother
thought he must be drunk and at first refused to go, but being pressurised to do so went and
opened the door. He shut it quicker than he had opened it, because looking down the corridor he
saw a figure with glaring eyes and a shroud over its head. He had the notion at the time that a
Christian would not see ghosts anyway. It transpired that other soldiers returning late at night saw
the same figure and that when the corridor light was switched on the figure disappeared from the
building and returned when it was switched off. Soldiers approaching the building saw something
leaving the building when the light was switched on. I was not billeted at the camp at the time
which was at Westmoors near Bournemouth, but when I was moved there I asked an old battle
hardened sergeant about the matter. He said that he went up to the figure and that there was
definitely something there. He told me that he had put it about in the mess that it was X’s Father
come to visit him. X’s Father had just died which I was not aware of until he told me. However,
he admitted that he had no basis for his statement other than the recent death. I was told that the
ghostly figure was seen again on a later occasion.
Apart from what others see, and ghostly figures are not a modern
phenomenon (see for example Job 4:12-21), there is the testimony of those whose who have had
out of body experiences after they have apparently died and have subsequently been
resuscitated. The creationist Dr. David Rosevear had such an experience relatively recently.
My wife’s Stepfather stated that he saw my wife’s Mother’s spirit go when
she died. There is also the testimony, for what it is worth of mediums.
That people play tricks sometimes by putting sheets over their heads or
whatever is no doubt true. However if their pretence succeeds they would almost certainly say
something like: “You’ve been had” to show how clever they have been. I have been momentarily
taken in when out walking in the country at night. A moving figure appeared against a hedge.
However, it was simply my shadow thrown against the hedge by a light behind me. Optical
illusions and tricks nowhere near explain the psychical experiences that people have.
130
Seeing that birds and other creatures can fly, one is surprised that anyone would
dogmatically say that Man could not make a flying machine. After all, such things as radar exist
in some bats, electricity in some eels and so on. It is mainly a question of harnessing natural
forces.
132
There are such things as “old wives’ fables” (1 Timothy 4:7) (See also 2 Timothy
4:4). The point is to distinguish these from other accounts which may possibly be true.
Sometimes we have to wait until further evidence is brought forward to clinch a matter.
134
Many things such as the ghosts of Versailles appear to be flashbacks to earlier
times. This does not seem so impossible now that we have televised pictures sent over the air
waves. Perhaps there is a natural phenomenon that records events and when conditions are right
they become visible. Just a thought !
135
Talking of the second law of thermodynamics, Dr. Dawkins is no doubt aware that
many creationists consider this a trump card against the evolutionists. Apart from the ‘law’ we all
know that species are dying out and that mutations are accumulating rather than the reverse.
136
The nearest things in the natural world to fairies are, I think, butterflies. One
wonders why fairies have got such a place in the public consciousness if something of the sort
does not exist in some way, if not in the natural realm. Jack Frost’s fern like growths would
probably not be believed in if they had not been seen by so many people. I, incidentally, am
inclined to think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle perpetrated the Piltdown hoax. After all, he had the
motive as scientists were thinking him “notoriously gullible” and he probably wanted to
demonstrate that he was not the only one who was gullible. Not everyone thinks he was the
culprit, but a friend now in her eighties who was introduced to him as a child thought from what
she remembered of him that he would have been quite capable of perpetrating the hoax.
137
I have never consciously seen anything resembling a flying saucer, though I have
known a sceptic who apparently saw one, but did not want to talk about it because he did not
believe in the existence of such things.
140
Talking of faith moving mountains; the story has been told of a woman who had a
hill outside her bedroom window which blocked her view. She had heard of faith removing
mountains and prayed one night that it would be removed. However it was still there the
following morning and her comment was: “I thought as much”. The moral was that she didn’t
really have faith.
141
Talking of Father Christmas. I never remember believing in him or in his coming
down the chimney. I don’t think my parents put the idea into my head, and in any case the
chimneys in our house were not of a size that would have made it possible for a child let alone a
man to climb up or down, and even as a child I could see that.
142
Obviously Dr. Dawkins does not believe in the story of the baby Jesus and the
three wise men. If he were to look at my web site: www.Gsimmonds.com and read the pieces I
have written on the subject under the heading The Wise Men (not necessarily three) he would I
hope give more credence to the story.
143
One can’t help noticing that Dr. Dawkins slips in evangelists just before quacks.
Does he think that all the Gospel writers of the New Testament are to be dismissed as either
charlatans or naive individuals ? To put it another way was the vast majority of what they wrote
“cleverly imagined fables” (2 Peter 1:16) ?
August 2004
