Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker - Surprisingly Faith Promoting

[Hamilton Porter]

I just read The Blind Watchmaker by the obnoxious atheist Richard Dawkins, and I found it to be surprisingly faith-promoting. It's faith-promoting not primarily because it's a bad argument, like ones made by Evangelical apologists with phony degrees (although there is that as well). It's faith-promoting because Dawkins is persuasive, in ways that he unknowingly helps the believer's thesis. The following are my reasons:

- He dismisses philosophical arguments that there is no such thing as complexity.

- He explains how complex life is, using examples from bats and genetics. Sonar in bats is so sophisticated that engineers in WW2 used the same design in submarines. Studying genetics is the same as studying computer science. He later explains how the appearance of design can arise through cumulative natural selection, without a designer. What he does not mention is that engineers also use algorithms based on all the principles of evolution (sexual selection, random mutation, fitness function, natural selection) to design optimal antennas (http://idesign.ucsc.edu/projects/evo_antenna.html) and combustion engines (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218005001732).

- He believes that human evolution is (gasp!) inevitable or highly probable, because cumulative selection is so powerful. His reasoning is that we can have so much luck to be here. Of the two phenomenon, abiogenesis (beginning of life) and evolution, we can only get lucky with one of them. Since abiogenesis is highly unlikely, the evolution of intelligence has to be highly likely. And not just any intelligence, intelligence strong enough to wonder how we got here. Nonetheless, he runs right into what theistic evolutionists have been saying, that intelligence is written into the laws of nature (see this series of talks given at the Vatican). Most atheists say we are complete accidents.

- And finally, this is a book expounds on all major aspects of evolution, allowing us to see the beauty of it all.

Dawkins also trips himself up as well. He said that the time it takes for life to appear may appear too long by our standards, but it wouldn't be to an alien. He should have remembered this when he objected to Francis Collins' assertion that God created through evolution by asking why God would take so long.

He also said that our understanding has been shaped by our ancestors' survival needs. Our ability to understand relativity theory is completely irrelevant to our survival (see Paul Davies' Mind of God).

He makes anti-religion jabs, but only occasionally. This was written before the onset of his lunacy in 2006.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[Glenn101]

If I recall, Don Bradley found his way back into the church partly because an atheist friend taught him how great the odds were against the universe as we know it coming into existence at all.

Glenn

[Darth_Bill]

Is the existance of an all powerful being designing it more probable?

[shalamabobbi]

Is the existance of an all powerful being designing it more probable?

More probable than what?

[Saints Alive]

Ben Stein does an interview with Dawken's in his movie no intelligence allowed and Dawkins is visually tripped up when pushed about how life began?

[Darth_Bill]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

[Hamilton Porter]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

[Hamilton Porter]

Everybody and everything is improbable. God exists out of necessity, not probability. Facts on the ground necessitate a creator. Eg, dawkins asks, if god has always been there, why not just say dna has always been there? because we know it hasn't.

[shalamabobbi]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

The argument from probability in this instance is a misapplication of probability theory. To say that something is probable is another way of stating that it occurs with its relative degree of probability.

Is heads more probable than tails? What if we weight the coin so that heads has a probability of 0.99 to tail's probability of 0.01. Can you still tell me which will come up on the next flip of the coin with certainty?

This really is an argument based upon mockery. One version of string theory at least was recently laid to rest at CERN. If multiverses are laid to rest then the constants of the universe are peculiar indeed.

Abiogenesis is a separate area of study from biology/evolution. But does God create the conditions for it to occur? You see, nothing about God gets answered from any of this.

D&C 50:17-18

1 Cor 2

[danielwoods]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

How would you propose to test the probability?

[Robert F. Smith]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

I don't know what "an invisible ultra being" is, but the notion carries enough internal contradictions to make it far less likely that chance occurrence of archebiosis (spontaneous generation of life by natural means). However the notion of an alien "superbeing transplanting" life here on Earth seems far more likely than archebiosis, which Miller-Urey, Jack Szostak, and Craig Venter (who was born in SLC) have all found impossible to replicate.

[shalamabobbi]

I should clarify that I don't believe in a dichotomy between science and the LDS religion. The ideas of abiogenesis have not to my understanding hit any roadblocks.

This is a good summary of where the field is at.

[media=]

http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/abioprob/

http://www.talkorigi.../modorlife.html

If we place our faith in a false dichotomy between science and religion then we are setting ourselves up for a faith crisis.

[Darth_Bill]

I realize that it isn't the proper place to look at probabilities, but if one is outrageous, so is the other. We have a lot of evidence for the way the universe works. That is done without any "And then a miracle happens!" phraseology. There doesn't need to be anyone behind the curtain running the show. If you want to see one, that is fine, but I think you are adding to the complexity of the system by introducing that man behind the curtain. I mean, where did that dude come from? It still doesn't answer the question and introduces something that by definition of the scientific method cannot be tested.

As to the creation of life. A designer still doesn't answer the ultimate question of where life came from. It just adds a "Poof!" moment and we already have that, considering our ignorance on the subject.

[Darth_Bill]

A great video is by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

http://vimeo.com/13115502

At about 1:00 he starts in on intelligent design and goes through all the mistakes that are part of our existance and bodies. If it was designed, then it was very poorly done.

[pmccombs1]

Everybody and everything is improbable. God exists out of necessity, not probability. Facts on the ground necessitate a creator. Eg, dawkins asks, if god has always been there, why not just say dna has always been there? because we know it hasn't.

"Facts on the ground necessitate a creator." It's the teleological argument, and Dawkins is presenting one of the counterarguments for it. We look at this complexity and say that it necessitated a creator. God is the creator. Is God complex? Clearly, He is organized and complex. Then, by our own argument, there must have been a creator that created God. And that creator must have had a creator, and so forth, ad inifinitum. At some point along the teleological chain, we stop and suggest that perhaps God is self-existent. But that immediately invalidates the teleological argument because here we find a complex being who was not created by some other complex being. The correct argument isn't that "God was always there, so why not the universe always there," but rather "if God is uncreated, then the universe could be uncreated too." Why couldn't we short-circuit the teleological reasoning and say that the universe is this complex thing that just wasn't created by a God? It simply is, and it is its nature to be just as we find it.

Stephen Wolfram presents his model that demonstrates quite clearly how complexity arises spontaneously from very simple beginnings. It is simply in the nature of the universe to produce complexity. Why is that? Well, maybe we could label that basic unknown as "God," but this would claim very little about the nature of such a phenomenon (Is it a being? An intelligence? Does it have gender? Is it personal in nature?)

[mfbukowski]

Is the existance of an all powerful being designing it more probable?

When he talks to you, it makes quite a difference.

[Hamilton Porter]

I realize that it isn't the proper place to look at probabilities, but if one is outrageous, so is the other. We have a lot of evidence for the way the universe works. That is done without any "And then a miracle happens!" phraseology. There doesn't need to be anyone behind the curtain running the show. If you want to see one, that is fine, but I think you are adding to the complexity of the system by introducing that man behind the curtain. I mean, where did that dude come from? It still doesn't answer the question and introduces something that by definition of the scientific method cannot be tested.

As to the creation of life. A designer still doesn't answer the ultimate question of where life came from. It just adds a "Poof!" moment and we already have that, considering our ignorance on the subject.

If this isn't the place to look at probabilities then why are you still making the failed argument? God exists by necessity, not by probability. You still don't get it.

The laws that govern the universe obey mathematical rationality. That's something no atheist has an answer for.

Please don't bring up the intelligent design movement, that's just a red herring.

[mfbukowski]

Is an invisible ultra being more or less probable than it ALL happening by chance? I dont know what is more probable so I ask those who take a side the strength of their probabilities. And is Dawkins a biologist who would know how life began? Are the odds of a superbeing transplanting life more or less probable than what science proposes? I know they have created amino acids. The priests of pharoah turnes sticks into snakes....

You are of course assuming that God can be discovered by science and that belief in God is scientifically provable.

Of course he might stick his face into a picture coming from Mars just to give us a laugh, but I think it is improbable.

[bcuzbcuz]

He makes anti-religion jabs, but only occasionally. This was written before the onset of his lunacy in 2006.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Whose lunacy in 2006 are you referring to, Davies or Hawkins?

[Hamilton Porter]

"Facts on the ground necessitate a creator." It's the teleological argument, and Dawkins is presenting one of the counterarguments for it. We look at this complexity and say that it necessitated a creator. God is the creator. Is God complex? Clearly, He is organized and complex. Then, by our own argument, there must have been a creator that created God. And that creator must have had a creator, and so forth, ad inifinitum. At some point along the teleological chain, we stop and suggest that perhaps God is self-existent. But that immediately invalidates the teleological argument because here we find a complex being who was not created by some other complex being. The correct argument isn't that "God was always there, so why not the universe always there," but rather "if God is uncreated, then the universe could be uncreated too."

Except we know the universe was not uncreated. I'm talking about what is actual, not what is probable.

Why couldn't we short-circuit the teleological reasoning and say that the universe is this complex thing that just wasn't created by a God? It simply is, and it is its nature to be just as we find it.

Because we know it isn't.

Stephen Wolfram presents his model that demonstrates quite clearly how complexity arises spontaneously from very simple beginnings. It is simply in the nature of the universe to produce complexity. Why is that? Well, maybe we could label that basic unknown as "God," but this would claim very little about the nature of such a phenomenon (Is it a being? An intelligence? Does it have gender? Is it personal in nature?)

Thanks for the Wolfram mention. Yes, here we reached the limits of science.

[Hamilton Porter]

Whose lunacy in 2006 are you referring to, Davies or Hawkins?

Dawkins. After the pro-evolution team in the Dover trials excluded him.

[mfbukowski]

D&C 50:17-18

1 Cor 2

Wow!

Great scriptures!

[Hamilton Porter]

The argument from probability in this instance is a misapplication of probability theory. To say that something is probable is another way of stating that it occurs with its relative degree of probability.

Is heads more probable than tails? What if we weight the coin so that heads has a probability of 0.99 to tail's probability of 0.01. Can you still tell me which will come up on the next flip of the coin with certainty?

This really is an argument based upon mockery. One version of string theory at least was recently laid to rest at CERN. If multiverses are laid to rest then the constants of the universe are peculiar indeed.

Abiogenesis is a separate area of study from biology/evolution. But does God create the conditions for it to occur? You see, nothing about God gets answered from any of this.

D&C 50:17-18

1 Cor 2

Even if string theory were valid, like Michio Kaku, one of the scientists working on it, said, "Where did string theory come from then?" Why do we have this amazing one law that governs the entire universe? (Let alone create multiple universes?).

[bcuzbcuz]

Dawkins. After the pro-evolution team in the Dover trials excluded him.

He seems to be a well functioning lunatic then. He still writes articles and tours making presentations on a regular basis, like 5 a month.

[mfbukowski]

I should clarify that I don't believe in a dichotomy between science and the LDS religion. The ideas of abiogenesis have not to my understanding hit any roadblocks.

This is a good summary of where the field is at.

[media=]

http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/abioprob/

http://www.talkorigi.../modorlife.html

If we place our faith in a false dichotomy between science and religion then we are setting ourselves up for a faith crisis.

Great videos and references! Thanks!