PigI love it when atheists like Richard Dawkins become more and more consistent with their unbelieving worldview. They set a trap for themselves, as Proverbs 28:10 makes clear:

He who leads the upright astray in an evil way Will himself fall into his own pit, But the blameless will inherit good.

The goal in any apologetic endeavor is to force the unbeliever to live consistently with the implications of his worldview. One of two things will happen. First, advocates of the opposing worldview will actually become more consistent, and as Paul writes, “their folly will be obvious to all” (2 Tim. 3:9). As we keep “pushing the antithesis,” moral fence sitters will have to make a decision and either to go with the consistency of the position or abandon and actively oppose the destructive worldview.

Second, as the consistency of the position becomes clearer, its early advocates will abandon the position.

It’s unfortunate that not enough Christians argue presuppositionally. Too many still believe that facts are neutral and that there is common ground between believing and unbelieving thought. This is a big mistake. The goal in every debate with an unbeliever is to argue at the foundational level. What operating assumptions is he using to interpret his world?

Here’s what Dawkins wrote in a Tweet:

“With respect to those meanings of ‘human’ that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.”

I would go further by following through with the consistency of the atheistic worldview of Dawkins by concluding that a “fetus,” an adult pig, and adult humans are morally insignificant. There is no difference between a worm and a human because they’re made from the same stuff and there is nothing outside of their respective biological makeup that can give them ultimate meaning.

How would a human argue with a Predator or an Alien in the long chain of evolutionary being? The Predator would hunt humans like we hunt wild pigs, deer, and squirrels, and the Aliens would use us as incubators for their young. Who are we to object? And who are the Aliens and Predators to object if another alien species used Predators and acid-blood Aliens for food and storm troopers to conquer other alien races?

If one of these alien species came to earth and found Richard Dawkins pontificating about “sody pop … pigs and taters and one thing and another” (a line from the classic western move Shane) because that’s what their verbiage would sound like, what rational defense could he use against their superior evolutionary civilization? He wouldn’t have one.

In fact, these more highly superior beings might quote back to him some of his own meandering thoughts on the subject, although they wouldn’t have to since to them Richard Dawkins and the rest of us would be like the pig meat we have for breakfast in the morning and in the pulled pork we have for lunch. But for comedic effect, the superior aliens would engage the lowly creatures:

“How would you defend yourself from this often used quotation that we found among your primitive writings? Remember Mr. Dawkins, these are your words, and we are a part of the universe that evolved beyond you: ‘In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.’”

 “To put it succinctly, our DNA neither knows nor cares about you. So, Mr. Dawkins, start dancing!”

In the grand scheme of attempting to find extraterrestrial life, it’s important to note that we should be careful what we wish for. We might find out that we are low on the cosmic food chain, and once we engage our new found space buddies, we could find ourselves on their menu.