I was actually looking forward to Chapter four, because
Dawkins kept promising that he would show the economy of Natural Selection and
that it was not a matter of luck. I took
economy to mean that it was efficient and conserved effort. Not being a “matter of luck,” I assumed
avoided randomness. I was
disappointed. If the word economy even
occurred in chapter four, I missed it.
Certainly, it did not comprise a major part of the discussion.
Dawkins claims to annihilate the concept of Irreducible
Complexity in this chapter. I am not
going to attempt to refute this (although I do tend to believe in Irreducible
Complexity), because the amount of information he gives is not sufficient for
me to be sure of my argument. I am not
criticizing him for this, because to have given a thorough explanation would be
beyond the scope of the book. I have not
read the papers he says support his viewpoint.
He is totally within his rights leaving out more detail. I have done the same in saying that I can’t
deal with everything in this blog….in my response to the last chapter, I
skipped over his criticism of the scriptures as contradictory and mythological.
I do have some overarching criticisms of this chapter, however.
1.
Why
Natural Selection represents economy is never explained. He does spend a lot of time on why it is
consciousness raising, that being a pretty vague concept. I wonder if he will later in the book get
around to explaining the origin of consciousness from a purely naturalistic
perspective.
2.
He describes Design by a Creator as leaping from
the base of a mountain to the top, while Natural Selection inches up the
backside of the mountain step by step.
Since Natural Selection is not a conscious entity, how does it know
enough to advance step by step? Why
doesn’t it go in endless circles around the mountain or sit at the bottom
making a campfire? If it is advancing, then
every single baby-step has to be advantageous in some way, or the whole notion
breaks down.
3.
He never explains why the next step isn’t random
or luck of the draw. Decades ago, I read
an article in the Smithsonian, which always espouses an evolutionary
viewpoint. In the article (which I think
was about pine cones) the author made reference to the design being directed by
Mother Nature. I chuckled to
myself. Huh? Anthropomorphizing Mother Nature? How did that get by the editors? The author must have subconsciously been
thinking that the “evolution” of the pine cone wasn’t random. Someone was in charge. Couldn’t be God, so it must be Mother Nature.
4.
While many very complex goals can be achieved by
taking one small step at a time, others cannot.
Somewhere along the way there is an impossible step. For example, given enough time I could walk
from my home in upstate New York to New York City, but I could not walk to
London, England, no matter how much time I had. I cannot walk on water….well, short of a
miracle occurring. Breaking things down
into very small increments doesn’t always achieve the goal.
5.
He criticizes those who believe in Creation for
believing in a God of the gaps. But he
does essentially the same thing with the Anthropic Principle. If Natural Selection can’t explain some very
improbable occurrence, then he throws the Anthropic Principle at it. Yes…it is unlikely, but we are here, so it
must have happened!
6.
He says that if there was a Creator, He would
have to be very complex. I totally agree
with that. However, he seems to believe
himself and to think that theologians believe that the “first cause” must be
simple. There may be some theologians
who believe that, but certainly not all.
“To suggest that the original prime mover
was complicated enough to indulge in intelligent design, to say nothing of
mindreading millions of humans simultaneously, is tantamount to dealing
yourself a perfect hand at bridge.”
Exactly!
Dawkins wants us to believe that the unlikely is possible through the
Anthropic Principle (we are here so it must have happened), but not believe the
unlikeliness of a complex, infinite, omniscient and omnipotent creator. Believing either looks a lot like FAITH to
me.
Dawkins raises the “who designed the Designer?”
argument. Of course, he doesn’t believe
what the Bible says, so this won’t convince him, but it is an explanation of
why those of us who believe the Bible aren’t concerned with this argument. God is eternally existent. Can we really comprehend that? No…the human mind cannot really wrap itself
around either infinity or eternity. As
previously stated, we are stuck in one-dimensional, one-directional time. But God says that His name is “I Am.” (Exodus 3:13-14). No other explanation is needed. I picture him roaring “I Am!”
By the way, Dawkins can feel free to ask me the questions,
he claims aren’t asked in polite society.
Do I believe in miracles? Yes
Do I believe in the virgin birth? Yes
Do I believe in the resurrection? Yes
He claims, regarding educated loyal Christians, that
answering these questions, “embarrasses them because their rational minds know
it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked.”
I am educated. The
vast majority of people who know me would say that I am rational. I am not embarrassed. I am just willing to admit that there are
things that my mind is incapable of comprehending. Miracles, the virgin birth and the
resurrection are not absurd. They are
beyond the capacity of my mind.
I know that Richard Dawkins as a naturalist cannot accept
anything that cannot be comprehended with the human mind.
But…
As the heavens are
higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts
than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9
No comments:
Post a Comment