FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 360 Survival of the Fittest and the movie MAD MAX (Schaeffer v. Richard Dawkins) Featured artist is Zhang Xiaogang


Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins

Image result for richard dawkins obama


Image result for francis schaeffer


Image result for richard dawkins peter singer


Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis and Edith Schaeffer at their home in Switzerland with some visiting friends


Image result for richard dawkins young

Schaeffer with his wife Edith in Switzerland.

Image result for john lennox and richard dawkins

Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

July 16, 2019

Richard Dawkins c/o Richard Dawkins Foundation, 
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

Page 242 in THE GOD DELUSION: “If you teach children that they evolved from monkeys, then they will act like monkeys.”

This criticism can be made basically because of the “survival of the fittest” view that has been adopted from science and then applied to everyday life. Let me share with you a portion of a post I did on the recent MAD MAX movie:

I must say that I really enjoyed this movie and I have also included a very positive review of it from CHRISTIANITY TODAY below.

The background of the MAD MAX movies is the destruction of the rest of the world by atomic weapons and the aftermath of disease and survival of fittest of those still living at this point in Australia. The main lesson to learn from these series of movies is that from a humanist worldview there is nothing left except the survival of the fittest and ultimately even the human race is bound for extinction as Nevil Shute presented in his book ON THE BEACH. Francis Schaeffer discusses this book a great deal and he shows that although many people today still hold to a form of optimistic humanism, it really has no basis. Even as far back as Charles Darwin this idea has been put forth.

Darwin wrote, “Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is…” 

Francis Schaeffer observed:

Now you have now the birth of Julian Huxley’s evolutionary optimistic humanism already stated by Darwin. Darwin now has a theory that man is going to be better. If you had lived at 1860 or 1890 and you said to Darwin, “By 1970 will man be better?” He certainly would have the hope that man would be better as Julian Huxley does today. Of course, I wonder what he would say if he lived in our day and saw what has been made of his own views in the direction of (the mass murder) Richard Speck (and deterministic thinking of today’s philosophers). I wonder what he would say. So you have the factor, already the dilemma in Darwin that I pointed out in Julian Huxley and that is evolutionary optimistic humanism rests always on tomorrow. You never have an argument from the present or the past for evolutionary optimistic humanism.

You can have evolutionary nihilism on the basis of the present and the past. Every time you have someone bringing in evolutionary optimistic humanism it is always based on what is going to be produced tomorrow. When is it coming? The years pass and is it coming? Arthur Koestler doesn’t think it is coming. He sees lots of problems here and puts forth for another solution.

I got these comments below off the internet from a person who was reviewing Francis Schaeffer’s film AGE OF NONREASON:

What is the problem of taking nature as the moral standard? To answer this question Schaeffer asks us to consider the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), ”who well understood the logical conclusion of this deification of nature. He knew that if nature is all, then what is is right, and nothing more can be said. The natural result of this was his ‘sadism,’ his cruelty, especially to women.” de Sade writing in his book “Justine” says “As nature has made us (the men) the strongest, we can do with her (the woman) whatever we please.” In nature there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, and there is no basis for making those distinctions. In nature, might makes right. Can you imagine what true natural system of law would look like? Schaeffer’s conclusion is; “There are no moral distinctions, no value system. What is right? Thus, there is no basis for either morals or law.” If we are to make nature the rule, the yardstick by which we live then there is no distinction between things like cruelty and noncruelty.


Dan Guinn posted on his blog at http://www.francisschaefferstudies.orgconcerning the Nazis and evolution: As Schaeffer points out, “…these ideas helped produce an even more far-reaching yet logical conclusion: the Nazi movement in Germany.Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), leader of the Gestapo, stated that the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest. The result was the gas chambers. Hitler stated numerous times that Christianity and its notion of charity should be “replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness.” Surely many factors were involved in the rise of National Socialism in Germany. For example, the Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society. After World War I came political and economic chaos and a flood of moral permissiveness in Germany. Thus, many factors created the situation. But in that setting the theory of the survival of the fittest sanctioned what occurred. ”

Francis Schaeffer notes that this idea ties into today when we are actually talking about making infanticide legal in some academic settings. Look at what these three humanist scholars have written:

  • Peter Singer, who recently was seated in an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
  • In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
  • In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying “… no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States




Image result for francis schaeffer c. everett koop whatever happened to human race?


Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris 

Image result for four horsemen richard dawkins

Canary Islands 2014: Harold Kroto and Richard Dawkins

Image result for harry kroto richard dawkins


Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

The Basis of Human Dignity by Francis Schaeffer

Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Credit: Don Arnold Getty Images

Francis Schaeffer in 1984

Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer in 1982


Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Episode 1

Image result for richard dawkins brief candle in the dark

Garik Israelian, Stephen Hawking, Alexey Leonov, Brian May, Richard Dawkins and Harry Kroto





Featured artist is Zhang Xiaogang

Zhang Xiaogang

Zhang Xiaogang was born in 1958 in Kunming, China. Xiaogang went to Sichuan Academy of Fine Arts in Chongqing.

Being unfavored at times he was forced to work in construction and other odd jobs instead of teaching painting as he had intended. Zhang Xiaogang fell into a deep depression fueled by alcoholism, eventually leading to his hospitalization in 1984. He lives and works in Beijing, China. Zhang Xiaogang is a preeminent member of the contemporary Chinese avant-garde. His Surrealist-inspired portraits are executed in smoothly rendered oil paint. The works maintain a formal and stiffly posed aesthetic. Zhang’s focus is on the aftereffects of the Cultural Revolution and the meaning of family, history, and memory in China today. Zhang Xiaogang was inspired to create his Bloodlines series when he discovered an old album of his family. Bloodlines series is work for which he is now celebrated. 

He has been exhibited at Pace Gallery in New York, the 1995 Venice Biennale, and the Daegu Art Museum.


Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 48 Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Denier Ivar Giaever “I think religion is to blame for a lot of the ills in this world!”

October 20, 2015 – 5:20 am

  On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 78 THE BEATLES (Breaking down the song TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS) Featured musical artist is Stuart Gerber

September 24, 2015 – 5:42 am

The Beatles were “inspired by the musique concrète of German composer and early electronic music pioneer Karlheinz Stockhausen…”  as SCOTT THILL has asserted. Francis Schaeffer noted that ideas of  “Non-resolution” and “Fragmentation” came down German and French streams with the influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets and then the influence of Debussy and later Schoenberg’s non-resolution which is in total contrast […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 42 Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

September 8, 2015 – 5:10 am

  _______ On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Bart Ehrman “Why should one think that God performed the miracle of inspiring the words in the first place if He didn’t perform the miracle of preserving the words?”

September 2, 2015 – 8:42 am

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto ____________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner Dr. […]

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: