Disappointed by Dawkins

His argument: let's assume there's no God, build up all our evidence and theory on that basis, and we'll take that as proof that there is no God.

Then let's build a straw man--the "God of the gaps" and enjoy knocking it down...

Knowing that Richard Dawkins was an engaging and influential writer, I read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design with real anticipation. (This was several years ago; I bring it up now because it came to mind while writing my last post.)

I was looking for something meaty to challenge my thinking; I genuinely wanted to see how he could make his case against design. Boy, was I disappointed.

Here's a summary of his argument:

1. Assume a universe without a designer.
2. It's really hard to imagine how the complexity of life could have arisen without a designer, but here's an analogy to show how it might have happened.
3. Therefore there was no designer.

It doesn't take years of study to recognize that as arguing in a circle. It's the same thing that drives most of the materialist evolutionary agenda: let's assume there's no God, build up all our evidence and theory on that basis, and we'll take that as proof that there is no God.

By the way, the analogy mentioned in point 2 is seriously flawed, for it includes a designer. But I won't go into that now.

A parallel line of thinking in this book (The "God of the Gaps") is flawed in its understanding of the creationist position.

1. Some people (the creationists) have hypothesized a God strictly in order to explain the complexity of life.
2. Other explanations can be provided for the complexity of life.
3. Therefore there is no need to hypothesize a God.
3b. When "God" is used to explain life, he is a weak proposition, a "God of the gaps" invented purely as a deus ex machina to explain phenomena we do not understand.
3c. As we gain new knowledge, the gaps in our knowledge shrink and our need for this "God of the gaps" diminishes.
3d. God gets pushed into a smaller corner with every advance of science.

Dawkins feels that believers should be very embarrassed by our shrinking God. He has invoked a classic "straw man," however. (A "straw man" is a distorted statement of an opponent's position. The arguer shows the weakness of that position and claims he has demolished the opponent's position, when in fact he has been talking about something else.)

Dawkins suggests that the only reason some people believe there is a God to explain mysterious phenomena. There is, however, a great deal of evidence for God, not only in nature's wonders but also in history, in philosophy, in revelation, and in the very real experiences of believers. A better description of a theist's view (one who believes in a personal Creator God) would be:

1. We believe on the basis of very good evidence, from multiple sources, that there is a God who has revealed himself in a trustworthy manner.
2. Part of God's revelation states that he created life, and its various kinds, through direct personal action.
3. We seek evidence of his work in natural history. We are not surprised that there are phenomena we do not understand, and we seek to close the borders of ignorance through scientific study.
4. In the meantime, this God is not a "God of the gaps" invoked to cover our ignorance. He is the God of all: the God of that which we believe we do understand and that which we do not.

Dawkins's argument for evolution is worth study. His claim that it demolishes design is entirely unfounded, however; it is laughably weak, in fact. But read the book for yourself and see.

Posted: Thu - December 16, 2004 at 05:21 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Disappointed by Dawkins

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson