Evolutionist Keith Fox debates ID proponent Michael Behe

For some reason, discussions like these are rare.  And I can't say that's the fault of Intelligent Design advocates in their willingness to debate these issues openly in public forums.  It seems to be the evolutionists who are either insecure in their defense or not wanting to give "creationists a platform" that keeps them from debating.  Imagine if ID'rs and Creationists ruled the scientific establishment and evolutionists were in the minority (this probably was the case in the not-so-distant-past).  If ID'rs and Creationists refused to "debate" and "give evolutionists a platform," what would you conclude about them?  Especially if all these closed-minded creationists published books, appeared on TV, traveled around the world giving lectures, but refused to interact with those they criticized; what would any reasonable-minded person conclude about such persons?  Yeah...I was thinking the same thing.

While he is not an atheist, KEITH FOX strongly opposes ID in such a way that you really couldn't tell the difference.  And thankfully, Dr. Fox is one of the brave few (perhaps because he's a professing Christian) who chooses not to avoid ID'rs as if they're lepers.  And to be even more thankful, JUSTIN BRIERLEY is brave enough to regularly host such interactions.  In this discussion, Fox and Behe engage one another in a fast-paced hour long dialogue on the feasibility of ID and irreducible complexity.  Both sides were respectful to one another and really covered some ground.  This is one of the few ID discussions (perhaps because they are so few) that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.

You can find the mp3 HERE and the itunes podcast feed HERE.

Debates by Stephen Meyer

STEPHEN MEYER is arguably the leading proponent of Intelligent Design in the world today, especially after publishing the book, SIGNATURE IN THE CELL.  In my opinion, if you are such a leading voice in a movement such as this, it is extremely important to be able hold your view up to public scrutiny.  And contrary to men like Richard Dawkins, who has been more public than Meyer will probably ever be, Meyer has been willing to accept challenges in the form of public debate.

Experiencing public debate is one of the most beneficial things you can do in making up your mind on a controversial issue.  And thankfully, Meyer has provided plenty of opportunity for the viewer to decide on whether ID is viable, true, false, improbable, or whatever.  HERE, Meyer's website has provided some very informative debates for free so that anyone can listen and come to their own conclusion.  I've listened to most of these and have found them to be very helpful.  And I would recommend you do the same:

1. Debate with Peter Atikins on Premiere Radio UK

2. Debate on Origins of Life featuring Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero

3. Debate with Chris Mooney on The Michael Medved Show

4. Debate With Peter Ward on The Dori Monson Show (KIRO)

5. Debate With Peter Ward at Talk of the Times (TVW)

6. Debate With Michael Ruse on Ben Wattenberg’s Think Tank (PBS) part 1  part 2

7. Debate with Michael Shermer on Faith Under Fire

Intelligent Design/Expelled discussion between Stephen Meyer and Peter Atkins

Not too long ago, I listened to this radio discussion between Atheist Peter Atkins and Stephen Meyer. The discussion was supposed to center around the movie Expelled, but it ended up being about the validity of Intelligent Design.

Though I don't know enough of the details to defend each and every case Ben Stein brings up in the film, I didn't hear anything from Peter Atkins that actually challenged the legitimacy of the claims of Expelled. And until I can observe a cross examination between advocates of both sides whereby the defender of Expelled cannot answer the charges, then I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the claims raised in the film.

Second, I found Peter Atkins criticisms of Intelligent Design to be extremely fallacious. Case in point: Atkins' idea that mere order is the same thing as coded, digital, information (such as that found in the DNA). Meyer's response to this was quite noteworthy in raising the question, "So you're suggesting that the spiral 'order' that is created in the water when a toilet flushes is of the same type as that of the information found in the DNA?" As far as I could tell, Atkins affirmed such fallacious reasoning. I wish Meyers would have pressed Atkins further on this, because every time Meyers described the nature of information in that all experiences display that it comes from an intelligent source without exception, Atkins would always respond with, "That's nonsense." The conversation never went from point A to point B. I would have pressed further and asked Atkins, "In your view, how would we be able to distinguish information coming from an intelligent source verses a non-intelligent?" That is, if I walked into a cave and found intricate writing carved on the walls, even if I didn't know what the language meant, would I be out of line in suggesting that it probably wasn't the result of unintelligent geological forces? Of course not. Therefore, I would like to ask men like Atkins or anyone else who denies the validity of ID to provide an alternate criteria in identifying intelligent information from so-called non-intelligent information.

Much more could be said about this discussion, but i'd like the listener to determine for himself whether ID is a legitimate idea.

You can listen to the entire discussion HERE.

(ht: APOLOGETICS 315)

A very informative discussion on intelligent design

Recently, on the Unbelievable radio program, intelligent design proponent William Dembski conversed with atheist Lewis Wolpert. In most debates, there is a lot of monologue but very little dialogue. In this one hour radio program, it was a non-stop cross examination. In fact, this was one of the best discussions on the subject that i've ever heard. Personally, I thought Dembski was pretty disingenuous in not allowing Wolpert and the host more time to speak. But I thought that Wolpert was far worse in a different respect; he was incredibly irrational and closed-minded in the most negative sense of the word. According to Wolpert, the only thing that would make evolution false would be if he gave birth to a dog. This should give you a glimpse of where this man is coming from. I also found myself about to drive into a ditch when I heard Wolpert claiming that design could never be detected in biology, nor can one form probabilistic arguments.

I don't want to give too much away. You can listen to the full discussion HERE.

An interesting question by Cornelius Hunter

I really enjoy reading the thoughts of Cornelius Hunter, as he is really good at taking off the iron mask of evolutionary presuppositions when encountering evidence. In his RECENT POST, he poses a very interesting question for the naturalistic materialist on the limits of science. Since scientific methodology is not necessarily my area of expertise, i'm writing this blog for curiosity's sake. So, if you hold to naturalistic materialism, i'd like you to read and answer the following:

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn't work.

Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic. For instance, imagine that human consciousness and will amount to more than mere atoms in motion. Perhaps, for example, there is a soul that transcends the material world. Then science's attempts to explain our thinking will rule out the right answer if science is constrained to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism would be wrong, and the question is: how should we handle such cases if they are encountered?

I can only think of four possible answers to this question, so this amounts to a simple multiple choice option:

A. Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic.

B. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect.

C. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science should back away from the problem at hand. Science should only address phenomenon that are fully naturalistic.

D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism.

The wonders of Evolution!

This is truly magnificent! Evolution is so beautifully displayed in these instances! Thanks to Darwin and modern genetics, we now know how random mutation and natural selection, plus a really really long time, can produce such amazing feats of engineering genius. I don't mean "engineering genius" to imply "intelligence." No, that would violate naturalistic materialism. The reason being, science cannot operate on anything but that. Therefore, I can conveniently conceive of any biological design, even the most mind-boggling complexity, and perceive an explanation as long as it is within the realm of my materialistic worldview. Praise science!

Censorship by Evolutionists or Coincidence?

Darwin’s Dilemma: Evolutionary Elite Choose Censorship over Scientific Debate

by Casey Luskin

When a conservative group, the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), recently contracted to premiere a new documentary titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” at the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center, they couldn’t imagine the brouhaha that would ensue.

As soon as word of the screening went public, the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.

Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”?

To give some background on the controversy, the fossil record shows that about 530 million years ago, nearly all major animal groups (called “phyla”) abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the “Cambrian explosion,” this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin’s time.

There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”:

A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.

B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.

Succumbing to pressure from Darwinian elites, the California Science Center chose option B.

The AFA had contracted with the Science Center, a department of the California state government, to show “Darwin’s Dilemma” on Sept. 25th at the center’s IMAX Theatre. The film explores the eponymous problem of how the Cambrian explosion challenges Darwinian theory and features scientists arguing that the best explanation is intelligent design (ID).

Apparently this was too much for the California Science Center, which abruptly cancelled the AFA’s contract just a couple weeks before the screening. The center claims it cancelled the event “because of issues related to the contract” but refuses to identify the issues.

Contract “issues” always make a nice pretext for censorship, but a little digging into history uncovers what likely took place.

The California Science Center is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, which has a long history of opposing academic freedom for ID.

In 2004, a pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific article authored by Stephen Meyer was published in a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal. Once the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) realized it had published a pro-ID paper, it repudiated Meyer’s article, alleging the paper “does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

Of course the BSW cited no factual errors in the paper; they just didn’t like Meyer’s conclusions.

Then in 2005, a critical New York Times story inspired anti-ID censors to pressure the Smithsonian to cancel the screening of a pro-ID film, “The Privileged Planet.”

To its credit, the Smithsonian honored its contract to show the film but publicly disclaimed the event, stating “the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution.” Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer said the institution objected to the documentary’s “philosophical conclusion.”

(Of course, when the Smithsonian featured Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” documentary in 1997, it volunteered no objections to the film’s bold opening statement that “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”)

The story picks up in 2006, when a congressional staff investigation found that "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ted] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution.”

The persecuted scientist was Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg, who experienced retaliation for overseeing the publication of Meyer’s paper.

The Smithsonian Institution seems willing to go to great lengths to oppose ID and send the message that scientists who sympathize with ID will face consequences, but how does this relate to the current debacle with the California Science Center?

For one, Drs. Sternberg and Meyer are featured in the “Darwin’s Dilemma” documentary advocating ID. And second, Smithsonian spokesman Randal Kremer has reappeared, stating that he “spoke” with the California Science Center after becoming “concerned by the inference … there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch.”

Though Kremer officially denies it, all appearances indicate pressure was applied from on high at the Smithsonian, and the California Science Center caved in and cancelled the event. Once we move past the customary pretexts, this is an open and shut case of censorship and the banning of free speech that dissents from evolution.

Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.

Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?

That is the real question posed by Darwin’s dilemma. Let’s hope the California Science Center reverses its decision to cancel the contracted screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma” and chooses freedom of speech over evolutionary dogmatism.

REFERENCE

(ht: Evolution News and Views)

How not to debate Richard Dawkins

Even though Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Intelligent Design advocates or Creationists, every once in a while he will appear on a major media outlet, as he does with Bill O'Reilly:



This is not how you should debate Richard Dawkins, or an atheist for that matter. Its a shame that the few times Dawkins opens himself up enough for a public challenge, its from the worst advocates of the other side. Maybe this is why Dawkins thinks Intelligent Design is so silly. Or maybe its because he doesn't read their works and refuses to interact with them? Either way, Dawkins pulls the wool over his eyes and plugs his ears when it comes to acknowledging the other side.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed at The Royal Ontario Museum

Go HERE to watch the interview.

I have a few comments about this interview. First, notice all of the assumptions and passing comments that are made, such as, "Oh, this is the cousin of that over there." Imagine how a creationist would be criticized for making the same sort of passing remarks and assumptions if he were doing so in a creation museum. Evolutionists would not have it!

A few other observations about the interview:

"They don't look at the evidence. If they did look at the evidence, they would be persuaded."

Who is "they?" Perhaps the vast majority of those who deny evolution? The same people who have a high school or college education? The same people that wouldn't have passed their tests if they didn't "look at the evidence?" It would be like someone passing a test on the Civil War without having any prior knowledge about the event. Surely Dawkins isn't going to argue that no evolution-denier has ever not looked at the evidence?

"I'm interested in persuading those who are perfectly capable of understanding and looking at the evidence and haven't gotten around to doing so. And why should they?"

If this is the case, then why not deal with our arguments from our best resources? Why pretend that his most educated critics do not exist?

"How sad that children should be brought up in ignorance of this amazing fact of our existence and how it came to be."

Who's children? Sure, you might find some fundy, independent Baptists living in the woods somewhere, who homeschool their children and tell them that dinosaurs never existed. But i'd be willing to bet that these make up a very small percentage of evolution-deniers. For the rest of us, we go to public schools that teach evolution as a fact, and our parents take us to museums. So who exactly is Dawkins referring to here? If he's referring to informed Creationists, we actually encourage children to learn about evolution. Can Dawkins or any evolutionist show me just one Creationist or Intelligent Design organization that condones bringing up our children in ignorance?

"I jokingly refer to myself as Darwin's Tyrannosaur...I [have] these yappy Terriers snapping at your heels refusing to look at the evidence and much worse, browbeating and brainwashing children into not looking at the evidence too. Its so sad and such a waste of time."

More evidence that Dawkins is living in a dreamworld. Again, who is "refusing to look at the evidence?" Can Dawkins prove any evidence that this is the case?

I think Dawkins just can't understand how we can deny evolution. And because of this, he creates a false reality where all his informed critics are simply an illusion. Perhaps the following syllogism will illustrate:

I. Anyone who looks at the evidence for evolution will be convinced.

II. There are people who look at the evidence, but aren't convinced.

III. Therefore, evolution-deniers don't exist.

Richard Dawkins continuing to keep is eyes closed.

In this interview, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the recent best-seller The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution, continues to close his eyes to reality and persuade others to do the same.

"These people need to put up an argument of their own, rather than just badmouthing the people who are criticizing them. Let's hear their argument."

This reminds me of a child holding his ears screaming, "La la la la! I can't hear anything," when their parents are telling them to clean up their room. Later on, when they are asked why they didn't clean their room, they say, "Unless you tell me to clean up my room, i'm not going to know that i'm supposed to do it."

If this is the reality that Dawkins wants to present to his readers, as if ID'ers and Creationists haven't presented arguments "of their own," and instead are only "badmouthing," then Dawkins is living in a dream world. Dawkins is either completely oblivious or intentionally deceptive. I'm going to vote for the latter.

Its unfortunate that Dawkins has made a career out of atheism and evolution, but refuses to give a fair representation of his critics. Perhaps in Dawkins' ethical system he doesn't think its a problem to spend a lifetime arguing against his critics and then pretending they don't exist; but then again, i'm a Christian who thinks that men are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect.

"As you know, respectable theologians and bishops and vicars and people all believe in evolution anyway, so no religious person should have no quarrel with this, unless they are the truly ridiculous kind religious person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old."

First off, they don't "all believe" in evolution. But even if they did, who cares? With the exception of Catholics, JW's, and Mormons, who are under obligation to believe whatever their organization tells them, theists generally don't reject or accept evolution solely based on what their leaders tell them. Some people actually think for themselves. But Dawkins doesn't want his readers to know that.

"There's no informed opposition. The opposition is all entirely from ignorant people who know nothing about it."

This is the epitome of ignorance. Are all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really? This is truly absurd and Dawkins should be ashamed of himself for presenting such a fabrication of reality.

"All living creatures are cousins of each other. That is a fact."

Gravity is a fact, Mr. Dawkins. It is something that we can measure or detect through repeatable experiments. This is contrary to the claim that my distant cousin is a banana tree.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net

Don't let them hear!!

According to RichardDawkins.net, Kirk Cameron has gone too far.

On Thursday November 19, 2009, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (the banana guy) will be distributing 50,000 copies of Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' at universities across America to students for free.


BUT THERE'S A CATCH!!

Each copy will have a 50 page intro about how evolution has never been proven and how Darwin helped inspire the Holocaust.

If this outrages you, then you're not alone. There's something we can do though. We can amass as many of these books as possible, remove the 50 page intro, and then donate perfectly good copies of 'Origin of Species' to schools, libraries, and Goodwill. We can actually make this into something positive.

If you are in college, then you are in a good position to help. Check your campus on November 19th, and if you see a group distributing copies of the book, then get as many as you can. Get a copy for yourself, ask if you can have extra copies for your friends, ask your friends to go ask for copies, and ask other people you see carrying the book if you can have their copy.

This is a shameful thing that Kirk Cameron and the Banana Guy are doing by altering another person's book in order to push their agenda. But we can help to restore the book to how it was intended and keep young minds from being brainwashed by misinformation.

Now, I can't say that this is the way I would want to get the message out, but why are evolutionists going to waste their time doing this? Does anyone else see the obvious here: that evolutionists just don't want the public to hear the other side? If anything, the creationists are allowing more from the other side, since Origin of Species, last time I checked, was much longer than 50 pages.

Shouldn't the evolutionists be excited that evolutionary literature is being passed out? Don't they want people to know about evolution? If Creationism is so silly, then won't this be obvious to the students who read Origin of Species after a measly 50 pages of Creationism?

When's the last time you saw an evolutionist passing out literature displaying both sides of the issue? One side has an open mind, and the other doesn't. Seems pretty clear to me who that is.

If you want to join in the suppression of independent, free thinking, then go HERE.

Richard Dawkins presents, "The Greatest Show on Earth."

If you believe in Creation, think that evolution is false (and especially if you believe the earth is young), then according to Richard Dawkins', you are an educational disgrace. Why did Dawkins write such a book? Well, he feels that so many of us who don't believe that microbes evolved into biologists are uniformed and need to be educated on the evidences for evolution.

This is due to the fact that 40 percent or more of us don't believe in Evolution. This makes us an educational disgrace. The problem is, haven't we already been given the evidence for evolution? Did this 40 percent not go to public schools, get college degrees, and watch the Discovery channel? Is there some big mystery that we don't know about? Is Dawkins going to present evidence that I didn't hear about in my college biology classes? If so, then why isn't the most powerful evidence taught in our schools? This just isn't adding up.

I plan on reading this book only because I know it will be picked up by the masses. Yes, I expect Dawkins to present his arguments, but I do not expect Dawkins to spend any amount of time dealing with the best arguments and sources coming from the Creationist and Intelligent Design camp. Just like The God Delusion, I don't expect that Dawkins' target audience will be those who will actually look into what he says and what the other side has to offer. Nope. Probably will be more shallow argumentation that pretends as if Creationists and ID'ers have no response. Truly sad.

Book Review: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (Part 2 of 2)

Chapter 4 is interestingly titled, “Why There Almost Certainly is No God.” However, don’t be fooled: the author is showing no evidence of an open mind. This chapter is basically dealing with the design argument. Dawkins’ refutation basically boils down to, “who designed the designer?” as if theists didn’t think this would be a potential objection. But never mind that. Dawkins doesn’t expect his readers to read theistic works for themselves, for if they did, they’d see how elementary his arguments really are.

I found it very interesting that of all works which could be referenced, “Life—how did it Get Here?” (Published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) was referenced. Dawkins is absolutely right that this is a popular work with eleven million published copies. But what Dawkins forgets to mention is that the vast majority of these books are owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves. Furthermore, a snowball in a blast furnace has a better chance than a Jehovah’s Witness actually taking the time to evaluate the arguments presented in “The God Delusion.” But never mind that. Dawkins isn’t concerned with presenting the best that the other side has to offer. Instead, he refers to one of the most closed-minded religions in the world in presenting arguments against evolution. After all, why appeal to the hundreds of books and articles that have been written by Ph.D scientists in refuting evolution when you could refer to a book published by the Watchtower?

To be fair, Dawkins does reference Michael Behe in his dealings with irreducible complexity. But, as stated before, the author’s attempt to refute is pathetic. “Without a word of justification, explanation or amplification, Behe simply proclaims the bacterial flagellar motor to be irreducibly complex.” (p. 131) Rather than go into the complex arguments involved with the bacterial flagellum, I ask that you read Darwin's Black Box for yourself and see if Behe argues his point “without a word of justification.” Those who do so will find Dawkins’ statement to be utterly dishonest, even if one disagrees with Behe.

In attempting to deal with the flagellar motor, Dawkins borrows Miller’s argument in appealing to the TTSS pump as evidence that the motor could function as something else before actually becoming a motor. Thus, the author concludes, “evidently, crucial components of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the flagellar motor involved.” (p. 132) I ask that the reader look at the responses offered by Behe and others to see if Dawkins actually dealt with the arguments fairly, as the issues would be too complex to discuss in this book review.

Dawkins then deals with some of the other theistic proofs, such as the “fine-tuning” argument, but falls into the same trap of not bothering to look at the counter-refutations or modern developments. Instead, the author presents the same tired argument of,

“A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself.” (p. 143)

However, Dawkins completely misses the boat with his objection, which actually doesn’t explain anything. This is in light of his example of the man who is sentenced to death by a firing squad, but they all miss. In reacting, the man exclaims, “Well, obviously they all missed, or I wouldn’t be here thinking about it.” (p. 144) This is a classic case of circular reasoning.

I. The universe is set up with specific parameters.
II. Life is here.
III. Therefore, it happened by chance. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

The problem with Dawkins is that he neglects the specified and purposeful tuning of the universe. Its not just the mere fact that its improbable. After all, the structures to which a bucket of toothpicks forms after being dumped on the floor is extremely improbable. But finding toothpicks arranged on the floor to read the first page in “The God Delusion” would not just merely be an improbable event, as if it happened by chance. Instead, it would display specification, function, and purpose. This is the lens to which we view all things that are functionally and purposefully specified. But when it comes to the natural world, we have to advocate unproven and unnecessary “multiverse theories.”

Chapter 5 deals with the roots of religion; where it comes from and why we have it. Certainly, I have my disagreements with Dawkins on this issue. However, the issue doesn’t really matter if, in fact, Christianity is true. That is, you can speculate all you want to and come up with innumerable convincing theories. But if something is actually true, then it doesn’t really matter to me how you think it might have originated. And this is a big problem I have with Dawkins’ book; there is far more content that assumes the case is closed than actual arguments against theistic proofs. The number of pages devoted to Dawkins’ opinions on religions is far too numerous in comparison to the shallow level to which he has dealt with the theistic arguments.

I was very disappointed with chapter 6, where Dawkins attempts to answer the question, “why be good?” And the reason I was disappointed is because the question is not, “why be good?” Instead, the question should be, “if there is no God, then what is the basis for good and evil?” In other words, you can come up with all the evolutionary explanations you want to as to “why” we should be “good.” But the problem is, what if your “good” is not the same as my “good?” The “why” becomes completely irrelevant.

Chapter 7 is an attempt to disprove the Bible as any sort of “good book.” But the argument assumes too much; namely, that Dawkins has an objective basis for judging the Bible. Even if the Bible were the most cruel and sadistic book in existence; if it is true, then its morality is true. Dawkins fails to realize this and simply argues on the basis that he is the objective beholder of true morality. But what he forgets is if atheism is true, then morality is up for grabs. In other words, what’s wrong for you might be right for me. Later in the chapter, Dawkins sought to list his “10 commandments,” as if they were somehow authoritative and binding upon all men. Sure, you might find a lot of people who think that its moral to obey, “in all things strive to cause no harm (Commandment #2).” But if you talk to the countless thousands who are in prisons worldwide for causing unjustified harm to others, they might just be there because they disagreed with the “second commandment.” So here, Dawkins assumes what he is trying to prove; that these “commandments” are somehow the yardstick of morality.

Chapters 8 and 9 could probably be lumped together, as they are the epitome of Dawkins’ hostility towards religion. In fact, the title of chapter 8 is, “What’s wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?” Most of the arguments Dawkins makes are primarily based on “religion’s” moral ills. Thus, because “religion” does things to hurt people and disobeys Dawkins’ “ten commandments,” he sees fit to be hostile. And with moral objectivity aside, I don’t blame Dawkins for his hostility. In other words, Dawkins thinks that his morality is right, and so he acts accordingly. I do the same thing, since I believe that my morality is right. But what is Dawkins really arguing here? Everything that is “so wrong with religion” is only wrong because the neurons firing in his brain causes him to think that it is wrong. This says nothing about moral objectivity. Its all assumption, and does nothing for someone like me who believes that God, not Richard Dawkins, is the beholder of morality.

Overall, I was very disappointed with “The God Delusion.” Had Dawkins spent more time in actual argument than expressing his hostility, I might have provided a better review. But it wasn’t Dawkins’ objective to actually convince people like me; those who are familiar with the arguments and are willing to look stuff up. Instead, Dawkins is targeting people who are on the edge of doubt; those who aren’t going to look up the facts or counter-refutations by theistic apologists. And sadly, these people are embracing Dawkins’ brand of radical atheism.

The only way this book can be at all profitable is to be familiar with the so-called “new atheists” and how they might present their arguments. However, in my opinion, your time would be much more well spent in reading arguments by the more sophisticated, less-hostile atheists who actually engage the best arguments from the other side. “The God Delusion” is a complete waste of paper and would have much better use in a recycling bin.

Book Review: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (Part 1 of 2)

Atheism is a subject that I haven’t spent a lot of time researching until lately. This is due to the fact that Atheism has been fairly rare in my neck of the woods (“The Bible Belt”) until the so-called “New Atheism” books became national best sellers. Because Atheism never appealed to me as a rational account for reality, I never really saw the need to investigate further. But as soon as my friends abandoned their faith in God and the Bible, I felt it necessary to find out why. Lo and behold, many of them did so because of books like “The God Delusion.” And because I care about my friends, and want to be equipped to “give an answer” for my beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), I felt obliged to not only be familiar with atheistic reasoning, but to see if it can account for reality. “The God Delusion” was atheism’s first attempt at this.

In this book, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, spends 10 chapters convincing his readers that “The God Hypothesis” not only has poor explanatory power, but hinders our rational, scientific, and moral minds. Though the author is a gifted writer, I was most disappointed that there was virtually no argument for atheism for the first 75 pages. In light of this, one sentence in the first chapter really got “The God Delusion” off on a bad start for me:

“It is possible that religious readers will be offended by what I have to say, and will find in these pages insufficient respect for their own particular beliefs (if not the beliefs that others treasure). It would be a shame if such offense prevented them from reading on, so I want to sort it out here, at the outset.” (p. 20)

In other words, Richard Dawkins was about to get offensive. Now, I’m all about being up front with your beliefs, and even stepping on the toes of those who disagree with you. But one thing I strongly despise is disrespect. And for one who provides not one argument for atheism in the first 75 pages, disrespect and offense is not very appealing to a reader such as myself. Fortunately, I’m not closed-minded, so I kept reading in accordance with Dawkins’ plea.

Nothing in the first chapter really rubbed me the wrong way. Some of the points that Dawkins developed was the “religious” nature of the atheist and used Einstein as an example. Dawkins sought to dispel the commonly held myth that he believed in God, as if the theists could claim him as one of their own. In doing so, Dawkins could justify his own “religious” nature, yet be fully atheistic in the process. Perhaps the following quote illustrates:

“If by ‘God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying…it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” (p. 19, where Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan)

The last point in the chapter deals with some things that I have long realized; the political correctness in “respecting” Muslims and other easily offended religious groups. Without getting nit-picky with Dawkins, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said, and he rightly pointed out the many double standards involved in so-called “political correctness.”

Chapter 2, “The God Hypothesis,” didn’t get off to a good start in the following being the first sentence:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This isn’t to say that Dawkins doesn’t have the write to say what he wants about YHWH, but this certainly sets the tone for the bias that is prevalent throughout the book. However, I think the downfall is Dawkins’ hope of converting as many people as possible to atheism. And unfortunately, for Dawkins, he isn’t going to get a lot of converts from people like myself; those who have actually done a little bit of research in the area of theistic evidences. Instead, Dawkins’ target audience seems to be those who are in a “confused” state; perhaps they’ve grown up religious, but were never taught to question anything. Whatever the case, Dawkins’ bluntness doesn’t give him any more credibility in converting the honest researcher who isn’t after emotional appeals.

While there is much to mention with regards to Chapter 2, I wanted to use this review to address some of the arguments Dawkins presents for his atheism. In Chapter 3, the author seeks to refute some of the long-held “proofs” for God’s existence. Honestly, I was expecting much more from Dawkins. Never did I see any evidence that Dawkins has spent any time researching the modern, refined evidences for God. Instead, he refers back to the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, as if this was the best that theism had to offer. The reason this bothered me is because if Dawkins really wanted to convince his readers that there is no God, then why not appeal to the best that the other side has to say? Apparently, high standards don’t apply to Dawkins.

First, the author “deals” with a few variations of the Cosmological Argument. In my opinion, Dawkins' attempt was elementary. Had Dawkins bothered to read anything by modern theistic philosophers, he would be aware that Aquinas’ arguments have actually undergone some significant development since the thirteenth century. It would be like me writing a refutation of evolution today but referencing Origin of Species and leaving out the plethora of evolutionary literature that has been written since. Surely, Dawkins would be appalled, and rightly so. He would hold me to the highest standard in dealing with the best that the other side has to say. Unfortunately, Dawkins didn’t think too much about double-standards when writing his book.

It is quite insulting to see how little Dawkins actually devoted to the Cosmological Argument. From what I could count, only four paragraphs were devoted. In “refuting” the argument, Dawkins appeals to the constant drumbeat of the theist’s “assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” (p. 77) This is repeated throughout in dealing with the various theistic arguments. However, if Dawkins had bothered to read, for instance, William Craig’s treatise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he would have been aware that the regress doesn’t apply to God, as it only applies to things which have a beginning:

I. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
II. The Universe had a beginning
III. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

If there is a problem with an “infinite regress” for an eternal being, I submit that Dawkins has a much bigger problem in postulating that everything came from nothing. But to my knowledge, Dawkins did not deal with his own problems in atheism. Perhaps Dawkins doesn’t see it as a problem that, given his view, things can spring into existence from nothing! Would Dawkins’ not agree that from nothing, nothing comes? Apparently not, because for him, from nothing everything came!

For this reason, I have no reason to conclude otherwise that Dawkins is a poor philosopher as well as a poor researcher. Perhaps Dawkins is a great biological researcher? But the author has shown absolutely no evidence of being able to apply the same standards to his field to that of other fields to which he has no expertise.

There is almost no use in dealing with the other 4 “theistic proofs” as they are just as poorly dealt with. Perhaps one of the most insulting is his dealings with the Ontological Argument. Anyone who has taken a look at the philosophical arguments put forth with regards to this controversial issue would be appalled at how unfamiliar the author is with the arguments. In fact, if Dawkins had written this section as a philosophy paper in an introductory course, he would have failed. Whether you find the Ontological Argument to be good or not, atheist or theist, you can’t help but cringe at how this man passes for an intellectual. And I don’t mean this to be insulting. Dawkins has truly failed in fairly dealing with these theistic arguments.

One theistic evidence that was missing from “The God Delusion” was the Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, commonly referred to as TAG. But after reading Dawkins’ poor treatise of the arguments, I’m actually glad that he didn’t try to tackle it. I can’t imagine how poorly he would misrepresent it. But again, I don’t think Dawkins gives a rip about representing one’s views fairly and could care less in targeting people like me as his audience. Instead, Dawkins is after the theists who never bothered, or will ever bother, to read the scholarly, source material for these arguments.

Read part 2 HERE.

Ruse explains why the "New Atheists are a bloody disaster"

For many of you, the name of Michael Ruse means nothing. For for some of you, in particular those who keep up with the controversies pertaining to the Creation/Intelligent design/Evolution issue, the name is quite familiar. But for those of you who don't know too much of Ruse, it would be an understatement to say that he is no friend to Creation or Intelligent Design. However, it was very interesting to see Ruse disagreeing with the so-called "New Atheists." One such line really struck me:

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

I couldn't agree more. After reading The God Delusion (Review coming soon!), I found the manner in which Dawkins dealt with the various theistic proofs to be extremely poor and at best, elementary. And anyone who has actually read works by respected philosophers, theologians and scientists who advocate the theistic position should have the same sentiments towards Dawkins.

At any rate, if you are interested in any of these issues, I think you'll enjoy Ruse's piece.

(ht: Hip and Thigh)

Excellent video displaying the amazing protein synthesis process

Was Intelligent Design involved? Come to your own conclusion:

Ben Stein on Dennis Prager

A short, but very insightful discussion on Ben Stein's new film, Expelled can be found here.

I'm going to see the film in a few hours. I'm definitely excited. I want to post a review hopefully tonight, but i'm going to first try to post a video response to one of my Bahai friends regarding Calvinism. We'll see how time allows!

No Intelligence allowed

I have been waiting a long time for something like this to come out. I never expected this to actually happen, and it still may not. But the truth needs to be heard and Ben Stein's documentary will do exactly that: in theaters across the country. Watch this video. If you aren't familiar with the Intelligent Design controversy, then prepare for a shock.



Although I am not as directly involved with the creation/evolution issue as I once was, I am still passionate about the subject. Hopefully i'll be posting a review once I see the film.