Home Page
Sermons & Lessons
Home Bible Study
Debates
Local News
Links
Poetry
Español
Lessons on YouTube







~ REVIEW OF RICHARD DAWKINS BOOK ~
~ "THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH" ~
By DWH 4-16-2017

This is a review of Richard Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show on Earth. His book is a catalog of every failed evolutionary argument I have ever heard before, with an effort to explain how it all supposedly proves evolution.

PREFACE: Dawkins admits his other books did not prove evolution (p. vi). Yet this book will prove it “as incontrovertible a fact as any in science”.

He acknowledges the “literate intelligence and sensitivity” of Gillian Somerscales who copy-edited and collated the book (p. ix), but then proceeds to see no intelligent design in nature. How silly of Mr. Dawkins to see design and intelligent purpose in mere editing of a book, written with a language, but not in the vastly more complex systems of nature and biology with its laws, codes, genetic programming, etc.

CHAPTER 1: Begins with the word “imagine”. This is the entirety of this book in a nutshell - the fevered imagination of a man who despises God. As if to prove his temperament… he initiates his book with descriptions of believers as prejudiced ignoramuses. Yet, for all his claims of fact and proof, he begins with a HUGE lie - He defines “theory” as a “fact”. The Encyclopedia Britannica begs to differ.

Emphasis added: “In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are IMAGINATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are ONLY SUGGESTED by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it.“ https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory

Other sources concur. A theory is a possible explanation, a proposed explanation. It is a posited or wished-for solution, a speculation; NOT a proven fact. Funny isn’t it? A book of “proof” that begins with lies and misdefinition? But this is only a warm-up for him…

CHAPTER 2: He discusses historical speculations (hypotheses & theories) that attempted to explain the world. Then delves into his own fancy… a “thought experiment” (p. 24). All this proves is that Dawkins can play “make believe”, just like former generations did. This does not make his imaginary things more real than their imaginary things.

He attempts to use gene pool manipulation as proof of evolution – referencing dogs, cows and cabbages. Yet, for all the variation WITHIN each category of life… they have not become something that they did not have programing for to begin with. Wolves to dogs… still canines. You weed out some of the default, dominant genes and the recessive genes are left and manifest as domesticated dogs. But you cannot change it into a new creature of a different kind. You cannot breed canines in such a way as to produce dogs with gills, or flippers or wings or beaks or feathers or the ability to create works of art or computers or make moral judgments… etc. Dawkins is attempting to use natural variation within a kind (micro-evolution) as “proof” of General or Macro Evolution (a change of one kind into another). He is barking up the wrong tree…

So here is Dawkins, a supposedly renowned scientist, using data that is KNOWN to only be valid in a specific range but he MISAPPLIES it to a BROADER range. Can this be an oversight or is this intentional deceit? Dawkins has already lied about the definition of the “theory” of evolution. And considering the number of lies the rest of his book contains this is clearly a part of the pattern of intentional deceit by Dawkins.

CHAPTER 3: He speaks of flowers and insects. Utterly complex, interdependent systems upon systems… as happening without guidance, without intent or design. And I can just as easily suppose (theorize) that a wild animal, like a chimpanzee, was pounding on an old typewriter (which just “happened” to be around) and this resulted in a magnificent work of Shakespeare. If I had a PHD and claimed this, would you believe me? If I wrote it in a book, would you believe me? If all reasonable and intelligent scientists believed me, would you? If I called people ignoramuses if they did not believe, would you then believe?

Complexity does not happen by accident and chance. This is self-evident. All order and complexity is the result of intelligent design. His whole book fancifully supposes spontaneous life, spontaneous order, spontaneous improvements… but this is not reality. It is fantasy fiction and mythology, like dreaming up stories about Zeus and Apollo. These assumed spontaneous things are the opposite of natural law (Law of Conservation, Law of Entropy, as well as Biognesis)

Just as the “Darwin/Wallace prediction” (p. 50) shows that the design of the orchid under consideration NECESSITATED a creature to pollinate it, so nature is filled with evidence of detailed, specific, & complex intelligent design.

He speaks of “runways” on flowers, of the balance in flowers giving out just enough nectar to draw insects or birds, but not enough to completely satisfy them so that they will go to the next flower, etc. He speaks of all these finely tuned details… and yet denies intelligent design. It… just… happened… according to him. He is blind to the evidence in front of him.

Painted stripes on the road and gas stations are intelligently designed, painted airport runways with lights and fuel trucks are intelligently designed - but flowers growing runways and providing fuel for animals is all just fortuitous, mindless chance? Sure… He admits that the “habits and tricks” of song birds and dogs “come from elements to be found in” the behavioral repertoire of wolves and wild canaries (p. 56). He observes micro-evolution (change within a kind, natural variation within a limited category) yet he again uses it to “prove” macro evolution (the general theory of evolution). This is pure deceit. You cannot prove changes in kind by pointing at variation within a kind.

And here, Dawkins shoots himself in the foot. Previously he (incorrectly) defined theory as fact. Now… he uses theory (correctly) as a conjecture (p. 58) in explaining the formation on certain crabs… and the Huxley/Sagan theory (p. 59). He here admits that “theory” is not a fact! So which is it… fact or not fact? He actually does this several times through his book, using “theory” as a proposed solution, not a fact. This proves that he knows theory is not a fact, but merely redefined it to suit his own ends.

He delves into further imaginative tales… all the while asserting evolution as fact. For a man who is supposed to be proving his belief with facts, he sure lies and speculates and fabricates and imagines a lot.

Dawkins is no better than the old Greek mythologists who imagined that man was originally some unisex duality of beings that was split, and “therefore” you spend your life looking for your missing other half (your “soul mate”). They knew the ins and outs of their story. They counted people ignoramuses if they did not agree with or understand the fine details of their mythology. And Dawkins does the same, spinning his tale looking down on others who disagree with him or who do not know all the little details of his fiction.

CHAPTER 4 : He says “history deniers” are “ignorant of biology” (p.85) and those who think that the world was created less than 10 thousand years ago as “worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity”. He asserts that such people are “denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.” His slander and bias aside, the facts of nature contradict him. This chapter is specifically about geology and time clocks. He describes evolutionists as detectives who come on the scene and investigate. They investigate things such as how long a body has been dead by knowing that “the body cools at a characteristic rate” (p. 85). While that is normally true, it must be granted (even by lying Dawkins), that other factors can drastically affect the body’s temperature – hindering and warping an accurate reading of the time of death. His argument assumes a steady state in nature. Second Peter 3:3-7 predicted that mockers would come arguing a steady state of material existence; and that they would willfully forget not just the creation event but also the flood. A creation would present the appearance of age (full grown animals and man and trees and established rock layers) and a flood would drastically alter everything as well (quickly creating mass graves of plants material, mass graves of dinosaurs, filtered fossil beds by weight of the animals, coal and oil created under immense pressure from the remains of living things, layering of silt and dirt deposits, massive erosion like the Grand Canyon, and more). What evolution assumes is proof of huge lengths of time, is easily explained by the Bible account of history. But will these dreamers objectively consider this? No, they will speculate & hypothesis of absurd things that contradict natural law... but not consider God.

Dawkins opines: “The analogy to a precision clock is more persuasive for a Jurassic rock in the hands of a geologist than it is for a cooling corpse in the hands of a pathologist.” (p. 86). Let us test his claim: Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980. A 1986 flow produced more rock which was then taken in 1992 by Dr. Steven Austin and radio dated by scientists who did not know its source. They dated it as being 350,000 years old, with certain compounds within it as old as 2.8 million years! Is that “persuasive”? Is that “precision”? No! Some critics say Austin knowingly mislead the testers or that he claims to have totally disprooved radiometric dating. Such claims are false. Austin said, “I don’t feel particularly fulfilled by having people say that I debunked radioisotope dating. There is real science in measuring amounts of radioisotopes, but age is an interpretation of these amounts. My research shows it is a faulty interpretation. I’ve been trying to figure out the real explanation for the radioisotope abundances. I don’t think things have been successfully dated by radioisotope methods.” (https://creation.com/geologist-steve-austin ) Whether you agree with this testing or not, Austin did identify genuine flaws in radiometiric dating process, flaws that include not just natural variables in a newly formed rock but also the intepretation of data that can be very incorrect & subject to bias. Dawkins states: “All clocks exploit some process that occurs at a steady and known rate.” (p. 86) This statement, while true in itself, does not take into account the not-so-steady state of nature. There are commonly events which affect things dramatically on a local scale (storms and floods and fires, etc). How much more then would a world-wide flood affect things? It could have easily altered even the atmosphere and the amount of radiation allowed onto the earth and more – which all affects how these various rock clocks are evaluated. Evolution needs a steady state to arrive at their magical and mystical ancient dates. Evolution needs great lengths of time in order to magically claim that the impossible is now possible. Evolutionist must close their eyes to a world-wide flood and its effects… because a flood fits the Bible account and leads to belief in God.

Dawkins writes about the variety of zero-able natural clocks and how they overlap and allow cross checking (p. 87). But again, the way they use these clocks assumes that nothing was created full grown or with the appearance of age. They assume that nothing has altered their time-keeping. And they assume that scientists have no bias when interpreting the data. Yet, Dawkins claims precision! Dendrology, the study of tree rings, as an example. He admits that tree rings are traceable back to about 11,500 years ago (p. 90). That’s an interesting detail isn’t it? That fits with the Bible’s timetable, even so he speculates on “if only we could find” more trees and date something 151 million years old! But do you see the fallacy of his point? The very thing he denies (a young earth) he has given proof for in his own book!

He writes on radioactive clocks. Various ones have different half-lives, etc. But these all assume unknown starting conditions. They assume a steady and constant decay rate that is not slowed or sped up by outside influences. They assume that no other injections of radioactive material have occurred or subtractions. It is a fact that the amount of cosmic rays from the sun varies affecting things like c14 and c12, and the ratio of c12 and c14 has not been constant in the atmosphere. AND MORE COULD BE SAID! Evolutionists wave their magic wand and gloss over so many variables… to reach their conclusions of an ancient earth. And without looking below the surface of their argument we should believe their hand waving, glossy conclusions... because they are scientists. Are they infallible? Never biased?

Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40. “So, imagine that you start with some quantity of potassium-40 in an enclosed space with no argon-40.” (p. 96) Do you see the flaws in this example? An imagined starting amount of potassium-40 AND an imagined absence of argon 40. Unknown factors! An imagined “enclosed” space… forbidding outside forces from speeding up the decay or slowing it down, from injecting more potassium-40 or more argon-40 or subtracting either from the assumed quantities. There are many unknowns and variables which evolutionists must gloss over…in order to reach their ASSUMED “zeroing” of these clocks.

Yes, crystals from molten rock have potassium-40 and no argon-40. But remember creation was with the appearance of age. And the flood easily would affect quantities of all sorts. Even from a purley secular world view, earth's history is not a steady state - it has many natural events which cause variation.

And now note: “Only igneous rocks provide radioactive clocks, but fossils are almost never found in igneous rock. Fossils are formed in sedimentary rocks like limestone and sandstone, which are not solidified lava. They are layers of mud or silt or sand gradually laid down on the floor of a sea or lake or estuary.” (p. 97) This contains truth AND fiction.

Fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rocks. Interesting. The flood would explain that. But evolution cannot really explain the mass dinosaur graves or fossils across the world in general. Why? Dawkins illusrtyates the problem by ERRONEOUSLY stating that fossils are formed GRADUALLY. But fossil do not form gradually! They cannot do so! If covered gradually they are eaten or decay before fossilization! Fossilization MUST occur from sudden burial. Add to this the fossils of animals giving birth or animals eating one another… & u have abundant proof that fossils must be QUICKLY buried. Gradual sediment does not produce fossils! Dawkins is wrong.

Now… consider the mass dinosaur graves in multiple places across the world. What event was big enough to cause such, if not a world wide flood? having them all walk to a common grave site & gradually be fossilized simply would not explain it.

Fossils, says Dawkins, are dated by the igneous rocks found near them which evolutionists have already dated and named as ancient (p. 98). Interestingly, he admits layers are not so continuous as they would like. He then says (p. 99) that the names of strata are usually identified by the fossils in them. A bit ironic that… and circular. Fossils dated by the layers, and layers identified by the fossils! But never fear, Dawkins says: “Is that a danger of turning into a circular argument? Certainly not.” (p. 99) Sure Mr. Dawkins. Sure. No danger at all of propping up your arguments artificially... just wave your hand and dismiss the circular motion of your argument.

Add to this the sudden appearance of life – all phylas – in the “Cambrian Explosion” without precursors or gradual intermediates stands as an impassable wall against evolution. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_problems_w059921.html

Also, the fossil record is not so uniform as evolutionists would have us believe. Fossil are found in the “wrong” places all the time. See https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/where-are-all-the-bunny-fossils/

The order present in the rocks reflects the natural ecological zones where they lived at the time of the flood. Dawkins boldly asserts that no mammals have been found in the Cambiran layer and that if they were “evolution would be instantly blown apart” (p. 100). Well, is it any wonder why mammals are not found in a MARINE environment? I supposed the average person might not catch the fallacy of his confident technically worded assertions… but even so I sense some deceitful efforts in this line of argument from him. This is like asking why we never find elephants at the bottom of the ocean. Duh…

Now it will not surprise me if at some point mammal fossils are found, having been buried after being thrown into the sea by some catastrophe or the flood– but this will not be expected as a normal occurrence for rather obvious watery reasons. It is a red herring, a straw man, for Dawkins to wave around that no mammal fossils are found in the Cambrian layers. You may as well ask why no whales are found on the top of Mount Everest.

Dawkins continues now with Carbon dating, but the variables noted before affect this as well.

CHAPTER 5: “Before Our Very Eyes” says Dawkins.

The only thing before our very eyes here, are lies by Dawkins. An elephant with or without tusks is still an elephant. Variation within a kind (micro-evolution) does not prove macro-evolution (a change in kind). His “prima facie case of rapid evolution” (p. 113) is a blatant lie.

The lizards of Pod Mrcaru also fail to prove evolution. Their initial diet on one location, shifted its emphasis at the other location. Still, variation within a kind. They were still lizards – they ate bugs and plants before, and after. The change in the valves (p. 116) still do not prove macro evolution. Dawkins assumes new programming has been injected, when this is not at all true. He (in passing) ruined his argument by noting that that such valves are “rare in the family to which it belongs” – thereby confirming that such a valve is ALREADY PRESENT in the genetic code, the programming of these creatures. He has not discovered something NEW and evolutionary, but something ALREADY existing.

He then speculates on bacteria. His “just think” and his “might” and his “if” and his “If we assume” - do not prove anything except that he has a vivid imagination. The bacterial tests and his penchant to allude to Biblical descriptions (12 tribes, etc.) again only point to his imagination and bias. He (repeatedly) assumes that variation within a kind is evolution on a macro-scale. He does not prove his premise as true by repeatedly appealing to examples of variation within a kind. The bacteria filled flasks were, after all those generations, were still bacteria in flasks.

He foolishly assumes from this that complex organisms spontaneously arose and programmed themselves. Such mythology is like those who dreamed up Zeus and Apollo, with all their attendant stories and fiction. He foolishly assumes that “new information entering genomes without the intervention of a designer” has been demonstrated (p. 131). But, prior programming explains all that he describes with no problem. God either programmed bacteria with this information OR programmed it with the ability to vary within this range of conditions. You would think with all the knowledge of computer programming that exists today that this kind of thing would be more easily understood by a scientist.

Interestingly you see the arrogant snobbery that fills Dawkins on page 131. His snide comments about the “impertinence” of those who dare to question evolutionists…and how people who are not scientists “would hardly be able to spell” their way through the words. These people are considered “goons and fools”. This is one (of many) examples of his inflated, egotistical and carnal mind. But who is more conceited and ignorant than one who denies his Creator (Psalm 41:1)?

Ironically, he disparages another for describing bacteria as “clever” and able to learn (p. 132). Dawkins is so blinded by his vanity that he cannot see that living things learn… even bacteria. Intelligent design & programming allows bacteria to adjust in the ways he describes. But it is still bacteria when it is done. He has yet to prove macro-evolution. The only thing he has proven in chapter 5 is his own conceit and bias.

Guppies, colors and dimensions of the fins… still guppies when all is said and done. He can say they “evolved” a billion times, but that will not make macro-evolution true.

CHAPTER 6: MISSING LINK? WHAT DO YOU MEAN ‘MISSING’?

He accuses Creationists of a mantra about gaps (p. 145), but he has himself out done all Creationists by chanting his endless parade of “evolved” and various synonyms through his book. He says he doesn’t need fossils to prove evolution as a fact (p. 135). That’s a good thing for him, since no fossil proves evolution…

Asserting that “Lucy” was our ancestor… is like picking up a dog skull and asserting it was our ancestor. Just nonsense, mere assertion, bluff and lies. Ironically, he admits there ARE GAPS and vehemently denies the need for fossils to sustain his case… yet works to that end anyway.

He mentions the geological stratum. He admits that even one discovery of a fossil in the wrong geological stratum would be evidence against evolution (p. 146-147). That isn’t hard. A scorpion fossil in the Devonian layer. Case closed. Thus, by Dawkin’s own argument, his theory has been proven false. Don’t know about that one? Google: Devonian scorpion fossil.

And don’t forget, the Cambrian explosion appears with all the major phyla already present… which does not fit evolution’s gradual appearance theory.

Dawkins’ flat out lies when he says “we now have a rich supply of intermediate fossils linking modern humans to the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees.” (p. 150) Dawkins knows his general audience are not scientists and not well versed in answering technically expressed lies. He exploits peoples’ lack of knowledge by claiming as facts things which are simply not true. Dawkins is a practiced deceiver.

He wrangles with the sophistry of “a common ancestor” that was neither a chimp or an earth worm but more like an earth worm than a chimp. It is not hard to fathom what he is doing here. His evasive speculation on supposed common ancestors sometimes gets him in trouble so he has found a way to keep it slippery, elusive, indefinite… and to paint as ignorant any who do not understand his complex mythology. After all, if you do not know that Zeus and Apollo are descendants from Titans, you must be an ignorant barbarian… In short, he assumes and asserts links and expects the reader to believe it or be scoffed at as stupid.

He wants to place birds and reptiles together in the same category… foolish. He says they came from a common ancestor… mythical presumption. There is nothing in nature that would move one creature that had no wings, no feathers, etc. into becoming a flying, feathered, bird. You may as well believe that a real Zeus physically throws down the lightning bolts as to believe this nonsense; or that if you flap your arms long enough you will eventually develop feathers and fly.

“…links that once were missing now abound and grace our museums” (p. 162). Flat out deception. And he knows it, for (on page 164) he expresses interest in Devonian fossils linking water dwelling fish and vertebrates that lived on land… yet ADMITS “we would be too optimistic if we hoped literally to find our ancestors”. And page 168, “So we are left with a gap…” After all his hype and bluster, lies and deceit… he must after all admit that he has not the real, actual proof to back up his claims.

But then he expects us to believe that not only did water animals sprout legs and lungs, but that they then turned around and went back to the water and REGAINED fins… (p. 170). This book should be titled, “Dawkins’ Delusions”. His sequence of time charts are absurdities, speculations, fantasy. I will apply a statement he made on p. 425, “Superficial resemblances can be actively misleading.” Turtles and tortoises. I honestly have not studied them enough to know if they are the same kind or just similar but distinct creations. But either way, it is not hard to understand how a creature with all its given features can have a range of variation while remaining the SAME kind of creature(s). Just as traits can be bred out of wolves and foxes and the later results looks very different (no longer like wolves and foxes, but more like modern dogs) but they remain the same KIND of animals; so with turtles and tortoises. The genetic programming for the shape and function and shells (full, half, top or bottom) are all there from the start, from creation. When a turtle or tortoise becomes something new… whether it be a feathered, flying creature or whatever… let me know. Until then it is still a turtle or tortoise.

CHAPTER 7: MISSING PERSONS? MISSING NO LONGER

More of the same, just now focused on supposed human fossils.

I did a sermon addressing each one of the fossils he mentions. Every last one fits with either a human or an ape or an orangutan, or a chimp, etc. Nothing he offers proves evolution. Nothing he offers is an intermediate. Many were flat out hoaxes, a mixture of bones, a presumption of brain size while missing the cranial cavity, a presumption of hunched and hairy form, when admittedly the bones were from a diseased specimen, etc. etc. etc. If this is the best these “scientists” have to offer, then they just need to retire from science and go into writing fiction…

Rather it proves the desperation of evolutionists in looking for proof where none is to be found. All the “probably” and “suggests” and humanizing stories describing a baby ape as a “child”… are just more fiction. Dawkins even wrestles with and works hard to explain away the fact that archaeologists cannot even agree on what to name things… he takes their LACK of agreement as proof of some fossil being an intermediate when in fact it proves just the opposite. It proves that these men cannot agree, cannot see it the same way, cannot decide where they want to place the various fossils in their mythological history. And when they do name something (such as the “southern ape”, Australopithecus) he objects to it for obvious biased reasons… he does not want it called an ape! Mrs. Ples? They don’t even know if it was female…

Twiggy? Cranial capacity 600cc. Clearly not a human being…but a chimp.

In short, as Dawkins’ himself admits: “…of the fact that most of the links are missing” (p. 196). And, “I wish we really did have a complete and unbroken trail of fossils, a cinematic record of all evolutionary change as it happened.” His admissions and wishes are very revealing. Do you remember his own claim from chapter 6? He said, “we now have a rich supply of intermediate fossils linking modern humans to the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees.” (p. 150) How is it that he refutes himself in the same book and doesn't expect people to see it?

Turkana Boy? Based on… teeth and diseased vertebrae...

I won’t list them all here. Finding their flaws isn’t hard to research. But to show how Dawkins’ views these and lies about it: “I mean almost every fossil you find is intermediate between something and something else.” (p. 199) He labels almost all fossils as intermediates! That’s why he sees so much “proof” where there is none. It is all subjective interpretation!

CHAPTER 8: You Did It Yourself In Nine Months

More false claims which assume rediculous things. Remember that Dawkins himself said: “Superficial resemblance can be actively misleading” (p. 425). And yet, he now runs owith the idea of superficial resemblences...

He admits complexity and wonderful development… but denies a Designer. He grasps at a fictional cause while rejecting the only reasonable and sufficient cause. This is like saying a subdivision was developed… by natural processes but without any designer. The organization of the streets, the laying of electrical wires and sewer, the construction of homes and telephone lines… all by the self-ordering arrangement of time and chance. Organization demands an Organizer. Design demands a Designer. Dawkins can deny this all he wants to, but that does not change reality.

Complexity, whether it be in a computer or a living cell, shouts intelligent design.

Dawkins says, “Wings are not made, they grow – progressively – from limb buds inside an egg.” His bias is evident. Why would this happen if there was no intelligence behind it? Tie & chance just magically came up with it? Do time & chance create such perfect, functioning systems, order & purpose? He glosses over the genetic programming involved. He emphasizes the amazing growth process without seeing the truth that amazing process declares. You may as well look at a computer program and say it was an accident! Such a scientist is really a willfully ignorant.

With disgusting disrespect, Dawkins says: “God, to repeat this important point, which ought to be obvious but isn’t, never made a tiny wing in his eternal life.” (p. 213)

What is obvious and self-evident is that wings are designed. Wings have obvious purpose and function. Dawkins absurdly wants to believe that wings just happen without an intelligent purpose behind them. We may as well say that Dawkins’ book happened by chance without intelligent design. To show the fallacy of Dawkins’ view using his own style of words: “Dawkins, to repeat this important point, which ought to be obvious but isn’t, never wrote a book in his passing life.” How could he write a book when he does not exist? Do you not know that tables of contents are common in this world? That alphabets come in many forms and languages? Cannot you see that books are progressively formed all the time by non-random printing presses? They do not magically and instantly appear complete. Therefore, this book happened by natural processes and was not intelligently designed. Of course we may say it was “wonderfully developed, but not wonderfully made”.

If his point is valid, then so is mine. If he can call this logical, why can’t I? But if this is folly, then why isn’t his argument folly also?

By definition, the lack of intelligent purpose is chance. Chance does not produce order, design, purpose. The nature of this universe is tending to dissipation, dispersion, disorder - entropy. If there was no God to set the universe in motion, it never could have been wound up and organized in the first place. If there was no impudent atheist named Dawkins, he could have written no book blaspheming and disparaging his own Maker.

While Dawkins endeavors to make this artificial distinction between making something and developing something, Dawkins ironically admits that perhaps God made an “embryological recipe… something like a computer program” (p. 213). Dawkins himself sees the answer, but because he has already rejected God he does not accept the solution. His bias hinders him. Oh, the things atheists accidentally admit about themselves...

He scoffs at Adam being just made and springing into existence (p. 214). Yet his entire view is predicated in the assumption that life spontaneously arose in violation of natural law. By definition this would be a supernatural act, a miracle... but with no cause behind it! Dawkins assumes, contrary to nature, that non-life produced life. Dawkins assumes, contrary to nature, that things are winding up, progressing, evolving into better things. Dawkins assumes multiple supernatural events take place naturally, because he rejects the possibility of the supernatural. His bias blinds him. His same fallacies are applied to his denial of DNA as a blueprint. He takes an artificial, narrow definition of intelligent design (limits it only to a paper blueprint as a supposed “parallel”). Then argues that if you cannot reproduce a blueprint from something that this somehow proves there was no designer. (p. 215) This is more foolishness. The complexity of DNA programming is evident. The absolutely amazing depth of organization in DNA coding is evident. Yet, claims Dawkins, because we cannot simplify it into what he deems an acceptable blueprint… it is not designed by a Designer? All this shows is how his bias limits him. He vividly imagines everything he wants in other areas, but when it comes to God, suddenly he cannot see that a biological code more complex than man has ever invented is proof of God’s intelligent design.

He introduces several foolish speculative views. Then adds that self-assembly is opposed to planned architecture (p. 216). Why? Because Dawkins says so? Does he not realize that self-assembly is an even MORE complex design than something that cannot self replicate?

He even says of self-assembly and natural selection, “Both achieve, by automatic, non-deliberate, unplanned means, results that look, to a superficial gaze, as though they were meticulously planned.” (p. 216) This is laughable. This is yet another one of those memorable atheist admissions that things actually do look intelligently designed. Such an admission is VERY revealing!

I may as well say of Dawkins, regarding his table of contents and his chapters: “Both achieve, by automatic, non-deliberate, unplanned means, results that look, to a superficial gaze, as though they were meticulously planned.” Have I proven by such a statement that Dawkins does not exist? Have I proven by such a statement that there is no intelligent purpose behind his book? No, no. The purpose and design are clear. The organization is evident. Dawkins throughout reveals his hatred of God. Dawkins has revealed himself by what he has done and expressed, and God has also.

The single cell developing into a human body is proof of an Intelligent Designer.

The myth he relates about cathedrals (p. 217) shows that design does not happen by chance. He admits the principle here, but denies the application everywhere. His bias hinders him from being reasonable and following the principles he acknowledges to their proper and logical end.

Again, ironically, he admits that computer programs can design something from the “bottom up” view (p. 218). But, as we know, computer programs are the result of intelligent design. Thus, he again inadvertently admits that intelligent design can create things from the bottom up… which is the opposite of his argument in this section.

He attempts to assert the “local rules” statement again. (p. 218) But the same parallel refutes him. If a computer was programmed to follow “local rules” and produced the starling results he describes, then it is ridiculous to deny a programmer. The program proves the programmer! This is elementary school level reasoning.

While denying a choreographer, he admits birds follow rules equivalent to self-assembly (p. 220). He admits the high degree of programming in their brains… but denies a Programmer. How utterly silly.

Again, I may as well admit a high degree of literacy in Shakespeare’s works, but deny that there was anyone named Shakespeare and assert that it happened naturally by time and chance.

His further illustrations do not help him at all. They show the vast complexity of nature, and thus demand a Designer behind it all. No matter how many bumps, shakes, smashes, accidents and no matter how much time is applied… you will never accidentally get an origami swan through natural processes, unaided by intelligent design.

Another admission on p. 235: “I love speculating on how weirdly different we should expect life to be elsewhere in the universe…” This admission is laughable. It reminds me of what Paul told Timothy regarding those who listen to fables which produce more questions, instead of answers. And it reminds me of how the Athenians were described as spending so much of their time in hearing some “new thing”. This type of person speculates, fantasizes, and lets their imagination run wild… to their own deception and delusion. They love fiction more than truth.

Furthermore, they cannot even see what nature says about life in the first place to understand that it didn’t and couldn’t have evolved once, much less multiple times and in multiple fashions!

Whether it is cell adhesion molecules binding only to particular other cell adhesion molecules of exactly the right kind (p. 234) or enzymes folding in highly determined ways (p. 236) – design is evident everywhere, for those who do not close their eyes to it. He mentions the rules of chemistry and thermodynamics… (p. 236). Both refute his views. The chemical chart is like an alphabet. If you take the letters of our alphabet and randomly mix them, you get gibberish. You will never, ever get a work of Shakespeare by random chance. If you take the chemicals of nature and randomly mix them, you will never, ever get a tree, a dog, a cat or a single living cell. Nature’s rules prohibit the possibility of evolution.

Yet the obvious patterns and organization of nature give evidence, a finger print, of God.

He mentions the rules of genetic code… (p. 237). Who made those rules? Random chance and accident? Impossible.

He compares the workings of chemical reactions in living cells to a chemical laboratory (p. 238-239). A fine comparison - one that reflects intelligent design and purpose. He cannot escape it… even though he tries. The need for and role of enzymes evinces design. Their “specificity” and “precision”, “like a jigsaw piece”, “like robots in a car factory”, “just the right shape”, “just the right chemical properties”, “complex”, "improbable”, “beautifully crafted” to exactly the "right shape”, a "versatile chemical factory” (p. 240-241). Dawkins just cannot escape such parallels that scream intelligent design. He undermines his premise at every turn… Cells contain the genes for making the enzymes… only a few genes are turned on at any one time… “so the whole course of embryonic development is controlled, via an intricate sequence of events, by genes” (p. 242).

Wonder of wonders… if he didn’t have his eyes closed he might accidentally convince himself that God designed it all.

CHAPTER 9: THE ARK OF THE CONTINENTS

Dawkins fabricates tales of birds and reptiles being related. He admits he doesn’t really know what happened (p. 255) yet “confidently” affirms his views anyway. There are always people like this that confidently affirm things they do not understand (1 Tim. 1:7). Yes, “the details of my little story are pure fiction” (p. 256). His admission of this being hypothetical and a story… is telling.

His point in this chapter is the supposition that species existing in different geographical areas again prove evolution. Yet, despite his endless speculations, he has not proven general evolution by these cases. These creatures in different locations have not evolved into new kinds. No “lizard like” creature became a bird. But lizards of a kind, produced offspring with varying traits of lizards. Birds of a kind produced birds with varying traits of birds. Variation within a kind is not general evolution. Turtles are still turtles. Tortoises are still tortoises. Cichlids are still cichlids.

His assumption that diversity of species would decrease the farther away from Noah’s Ark animals went… is just biased assertion (p. 268). Animals are programmed genetically and are able to diversify. Variation withing a kind is by design. Diversification within this range does not prove evolution. Equines are still equines.

His dismissal of animals leaving the ark and “high tailing it” for specific areas is just silly (p. 269). If God could call them to one place (the ark) to start with, why could not God send them out to specific areas afterwards? There were only a few pairs of each animal after the flood. As the waters receded, more land was available and they would migrate. It is also evident that an “ice age” followed the flood, which locked up more water and exposed more land, allowing land bridges in several places. Thus, migration. Interestingly, Dawkins reveals the depth of his bias and animosity towards God and people who believe (p. 270). Yet his facts aren’t all straight (as usual). Dinosaurs and man did walk the earth together. Numerous sites have been found with human and dinosaur foot prints together, and more. God described a brontosaurus to Job (Job 40:15-24). Even if you deny God and inspiration, you cannot escape the fact that this description of a dinosaur was written down… by those who SUPPOSEDLY never saw dinosaurs before! Dawkins asks a lot of “whys” about animal locations (p. 270). He “fancies” one species diversifying into all the others… yet he speaks of “lampooning” those who believe in the ark “myth”! The sheer absurdity and fiction of General Evolution is laughable. Also, continental drift does not prove general evolution. Why would it? Their distance and current rate of separation does not prove vast ages of time. Evolution assumes uniformitarianism – that everything continues at a steady state. Yet, God predicted that mockers would say these things (2 Pet. 3:3). They pass over the worldwide catastrophe (flood) which is evidenced in all of geology. Ignoring this, they would be blind to the effects all that water would cause on the continents.

And fossils do not form gradually; they form by being quickly covered. Nor do mass graves of dinosaurs around the world form slowly. Only a worldwide flood could explain all of these things.

Dawkins thinks it odd that young earth creationists do not deny the shifting of the continents (p. 282-283). This just shows how biased he is.

He spins more lies on this page. Merely asserting how great evolutionary evidence is. Like the fossils, he says, that "actively supports, or is compatible with, evolution”. Just flat out lies. The fossil evidence contradicts his claims. Remember chapters 6 & 7... where he contradicted his own assertion of the gaps being filled in?

Dawkins just assumes so much and asserts it as proof of evolution. Assertion is not proof. No matter how well known he is, his degrees, etc. Dawkins is a liar.

CHAPTER 10: THE TREE OF COUSINSHIP

Answer to Dawkins: Similarity does not equal shared ancestor.

P. 291 Dawkins mistakes degradation and decline as the old vestigial organ argument. But he fails to see that degradation and decline are the opposite of evolutionary progress! Decline is Entropy (the law of thermodynamics that says everything is winding down). Decline fits with God having wound it all up at creation and allowing it to run itself down.

He foolishly thinks that because bones are named the same, that means they are related. Similarity does not prove shared ancestry. Evolution is embarrassingly farfetched. Resemblances are by creation, from the Designer, independently made. Talk about special pleading… Dawkins is like a child who says it looks similar so it must be so! Dawkins, then mocks the idea of God sticking to themes, because “any sensible human designer” would do it differently (p. 297). How utterly conceited…

He affirms “the tree of resemblances is a family tree” (p. 298). Complete and utter fiction, which he inadvertently admits on the same page (Dorados and Dolphins) and the next 2 pages (millipede and woodlouse)! Funny how many times he contradicts himself. Such “repeated convergences” are so statistically impossible. Evolution of such things even ONCE is impossible… but Dawkins expects us to accept that not once, but time and again SIMULTANEOUS similarities have evolved… all by chance? Absurd.

Crustaceans… “it is easy for us to imagine what the genetic mutations would have to do in order to bring about changes like this.” (p. 310). There is that word again: “imagine”. Seems a perpetual theme of Dawkins’. Dawkins grabs at every possible scrap of an idea he can imagine as “proof” of evolution.

As for genetics, Dawkins just cannot see the over abundant evidence of Intelligent Design, even though it is right in his face. The complexity of genetic code is the opposite of chance. It denies and defies the possibility of evolution.

God used the same building blocks for all animals.

Dawkins exceedingly oversimplifies the supposed “mutational work” needed for the changes described on pages 322-333. By glossing over the presumptions and imposed limitations, he then contradicts his evidence… and assumes common ancestry. He states that the agreement among the selected group was “unlikely… by chance” (p. 324). He admits (in very glossed terms) that this cannot happen by chance, but concludes (contrary to the facts) that this is how it happened! No bias there. Nope.

The supposed family tree (p. 329) lists only 3000 items. The odds of one living thing evolving into another are so astronomical they are statistically impossible. And then you would have to multiply that impossibility by not just 3000, but by 10 million (p. 330). Yet… Dawkins expects us to believe it all happened… without intelligent purpose behind it. This is beyond absurd.

“The molecular clock assumes that evolution is true, and that it proceeds at a sufficiently constant rate through geological time…” (p. 330). Two flawed assumptions that have already been refuted.

Pseudogenes (p. 332). Dawkins, of course, says an intelligent designer would never create useless genes. Because Dawkins cannot see a use to them this means they have no use. Because Dawkins cannot see why God would put them there, then there must be no God. Like the old “vestigial organ” argument - people later have learned what the organs were actually for. Might there be some use to these “pseudogenes” that is yet beyond Mr. Dawkins? And even if they are now useless genes, might it be a sign of the increasing decay and decline since creation? The wearing down of the universe - entropy? Oh the answers are not as hard as Dawkins imagines. He works so hard to see evidence against God at every turn, but he is wasting his time.

Again Dawkins slips up… speaking of the “breath taking illusion of design” in the genome (p. 334). Of course he calls it an illusion, but he admits what he denies here. He cannot stop doing this. It is inescapable. Just like those who disparaged Christ's miracles as being done by the power of the devil… they couldn’t deny His miracles. They just attributed it to a different source. So with Dawkins, he admits the complexity… but attributes it to a different source. It is a rebel against God that repeatedly sees the fingerprints of God all over creation and yet says God is not involved.

And, mutations. He describes the rate of mutation on p. 336. If he is correct here… then evolution is again impossible. Even by evolutionary standards there would not be enough time for it by evolutionary standards. Evolutionary claims defeat themselves.

CHAPTER 11: HISTORY WRITTEN ALL OVER US

Dawkins attempts to equate Roman history in Britain with presumed evolutionary history in the body. He asserts that he is wasting time and energy proving what is so evident. But his assertion assumes what he has yet to prove. All of nature proves God’s glory. Even Dawkins has said things time and again that admit to the complexity, design, purpose, and intelligence involved in nature. He cannot escape it!

His “best” argument through the whole book is similarity. He asserts that goose bumps are a “vestige” of a time when man supposedly had fur (p. 340). This is mere association. He has proven nothing. Yet Dawkins (the supposedly informed and unbiased scientist) says “They constitute persuasive evidence that evolution has occurred, and again it comes not from fossils but from modern animals.” This is no evidence of anything except his own vivid imagination.

He again tries to presume how God would have done things differently (p.341). But the truth is, no matter how God arranged a dolphin’s breathing apparatus; Dawkins would still criticize it and say a “real designer” would have done it differently. Such is a deceitful and short sighted argument. Anyone can come along after the fact and say, “You did that wrong. If you were really smart you would have done it this way instead.”

As silly and flimsy as his “arguments” are (similarity & “a real designer would have…”); he still accidentally admits the premise that proves God!

Think of the details here. A tightly sealed valve. A wide bore. The muscles. As he says, “”form one of the most complicated yet most exquisitely adjusted pieces of machinery that either nature or art presents.” (p. 341) Dawkins cannot avoid shooting himself down. As he admires nature he admits its organization and complexity. In admitting its organization and complexity, he has granted the premise which demands an Organizer and Designer.

Dawkins tries desperately to assert that design proves evolution. Yet nature proves the opposite. Nature proves that design does not happen by chance. Nature is not evolving things into a better condition. All things of life, order or design are being slowly worn down and torn down, not improved! All of nature is shouting that the more time passes, the less energy is available for use. Entropy is the principle of nature that pulls all things steadily downward. Like a top that is spinning when you enter the room. You see it, its balance, its shape, the energy it has… and realize it could not create itself, form itself or spin itself. You realize it is slowing down. All of this tells you that it was designed and placed in motion by something outside itself. Intelligent Design is the only logical conclusion.

Manatees & dugongs having the right specific gravity and two diaphragms to control their buoyancy in water… is design. Complex design! Flightless birds… Dawkins argues that they degraded from flight to non-flight. This does not prove evolution. If anything it would show degradation not improvement! There is no conflict with degradation and a Designer. God subjected this world to corruption intentionally (Rom. 8:20-21) so that we would not trust in ourselves or in this universe, but realize that we need Him who made all things. This world was not designed to be a permanent dwelling place.

Dawkins says no one could doubt that flightless birds lost their wings and evolved from ancestors that flew (p. 345). Silly. Just silly. How would this prove evolution? The loss of a function is degradation, not improvement! It was a bird before and after… so how does this at all help him?

Yet he confidently affirms from this: “No reasonable observer could seriously doubt the truth of that, which means that anybody who thinks about it should find it very hard – why not impossible? – to doubt the fact of evolution.” (p. 345)

What has he observed? Did he observe this alleged change from flight to non-flight? No. He assumes it.

What truth does he speak of? What does Dawkins know of truth, except that he ignores the evidence before his face in exchange for fantasy and speculation which he calls it “truth”. He asserts that any who doubt his fiction is unreasonable…

And according to him, what is impossible? It is merely something that (given enough time!) becomes possible, then probable, then certain. So how can he assert something as “impossible” when he affirms that anything is possible given enough time? (I speak facetiously, using his own ill logic. His absurdity is seen when his own arguments destroy his own arguments.)

The truth is, evolution is absolutely contradicted by nature. Nature evinces design and design demands a Designer. Instead of his statement, we should rather say, “No reasonable observer could seriously doubt the truth of [God], which means that anybody who thinks about it should find it very hard – why not impossible? – to doubt the fact of [God].”

He admits design and complexity. But then wastes his time trying to assert that design proves a lack of intelligence and purpose! Shall I argue that Dawkin’s book is a fortunate happenstance arrangement of Latin letters, which by non-random chance fit together to form words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters? And luckily landed on paper and were bound together with a hard cover? And fortuitously had Dawkins name printed on the cover? And that all of this shows not one ounce of intelligent design or purpose? Design proves a designer, even though in Dawkins’ case his intelligence is put to such a God hating and illogical use. Haltares (p. 346) operating like gyroscopes. Design.

Lost eyes (p. 351) prove degradation, not evolution. Atrophy is not progress! Dawkins here admits how hard it is to avoid the language of intention and purpose. He can see it. He even says it. But he knows it contradicts his whole premise! Natural selection does not create new, beneficial mutations. It weeds out harmful mutations. The programming in genes allows for a range of variety in every kind of creature. That format also allows for mistakes, mutations to be produced – especially as we get further from the original creation in the Garden of Eden. Natural selection weeds out the errors brought in by degradation. But it never creates a new function that was not available in that creature’s genes. Wolves for example, will never “mutate” to have wings, whether leathery or feathery. It just does not happen.

The vertebrate eye is “a superb precision instrument” (p. 353). Design.

It has “image-simulating software” to address blind spots. Design.

As noted before, Dawkins tries so hard to prove “Unintelligent Design” (p. 356). Such is an impossibility. An oxymoron. A self-contradiction. You cannot name anything that is designed that did not have a designer.

And again, Dawkins again pretends to know how God should have done things! But since it didn’t happen in the way Dawkins’ asserts, this “proves” there is no God. If someone does not speak the way I think an intelligent person should speak, does this mean they do not exist? Absurd.

He says the way things are involve “obvious stupidity” and “blunders” and “disgrace”. Dawkins’ hatred of God is evident here. The Pharisees admitted that Jesus worked miracles, but rather than accepting the logical conclusion, they attributed His power to that of the devil. In like manner, Dawkins admits design, but rather than admit the obvious and logical conclusion, he attributes design to chance. Such is pure and simple rejection of God.

He wonders why whales, dolphins, etc. do not re-evolve gills. (p. 357) He says it would not be too difficult to do so. It is because they never had gills in the first place. It is not in their programming. No kind of creature can “develop” a trait that is not in its programming.

The absurdity of his view is again seen in his use of the old recapitulation theory (p. 359). Just because something looks similar does not mean it is evolved / related. This is like those people who are so desperate to see Jesus they see his face in a picture from a fire, or in wood grains, or in a tortilla (no, I didn’t make these up!).

As for necks of giraffes stretching due to evolution… and gills transforming into other organs… the only thing being stretched is Mr. Dawkins’ imagination. He repeatedly asserts examples of “exactly the kind of thing we do not expect from any kind of intelligent designer” (p. 364). Supposedly “bad errors” in design prove there is no God? Just because Dawkins does not see the purpose does not mean a purpose is absent. The “vestigial” organs of old were thought to be useless, but most have now been explained. And again, he is staring at a vastly complex organism and due to his own ignorance of why something is the way it is… asserts that there is no God. It is like looking at the workings of a pocket watch and saying, “This part makes no sense. I think it would be better a different way, therefore the watch was not designed!”

And to think he actually printed this in a book for everyone to read! Such argumentation is laughable… Fish bladder (p. 367). Design.

The imperfections of life (p. 369) do not disprove God. They are designed, and intentional. There is a purpose in them – even if men like Dawkins do not see it. Arguing from ignorance (again) Dawkins asserts the claim that he knows better than God. Yet, natural selection operates in the realm of variation, not transformation. It is folly to assert fiction as fact.

His godless mind is revealed when he describes God as a “sadistic bastard” (p. 370). He just cannot bring himself to see God as benevolent because wasps eat caterpillars…? Somehow I doubt that is really what hinders his acceptance of God.

Yet even here, he admits the “overwhelmingly” impressive “elegant illusion of design” (p. 370-371). He sees it. But he must ignore what he sees because it demands a conclusion he is unwilling to accept. He labors so hard to say that what clearly, intuitively looks designed… really is not. He is saying that what is self-evident… is not true. After all, a real engineer would not have made such “haphazard mess” of things or a “mistake”. And of course, if it is not organized in a way Hawkins’ thinks it should be… then it must be wrong!

Engineers design flaws into their systems all the time. They do this so that what they make will not last a long time. They want you to come back to them for repairs, maintenance, and a newer product. God has in like manner engineered this world to remind us that we need Him. We would not exist without Him. And that He does have something better in store for us if we are not so selfish and ungrateful as to reject and defy Him.

And his comparison (p. 371) is like pointing at a brand new shiny car versus a 50 year old car. Open the old car’s hood and see how nice and tidy it all is. Dirt, grime, duct tape, leaked oil, and more – does this prove a LACK of intelligence behind the car? No. The order proves design. The wear and tear, dirt and grime prove entropy and decline have affected the car. BOTH design and decay prove the opposite of evolution.

CHAPTER 12: ARMS RACES AND ‘EVOLUTIONARY THEODICY’

He starts this chapter by again disparaging the “poor design” of nature asserting that it only really makes sense with evolution. His opinion (for that is what it is) is utter nonsense. He has at various places admitted the marvelous and amazing complexity and organization of nature… then repeatedly turned around and with the wave of a hand dismissed it all as a lucky accident. His other book the “Blind Watchmaker” is of the same stripe of argument. It is an oxymoron. It is self-evident that his position is untenable. If I take a watch, and we note the gears, the purpose, the organization… then tell you it happened completely by chance – you would rightly dismiss my assertion. Yet… looking at nature (which is fantastically more complex) Dawkins does just that very thing! He mentions the “solar economy”, the “chemical process”, “chemical reaction, manufacturing…”, “photo synthetic engines”, etc. He cannot escape it. He sees design everywhere. He cannot but admit order everywhere. His only, desperate, hope is to deny what design means. But such reveals how illogical and biased he is.

Also, interestingly, Dawkins introduces entropy (p. 376); a principle which destroys evolution. As Dawkins says, “at every stage of the energy economy, whether uphill or downhill, some energy is lost – no energy transfer is ever perfectly efficient.” This is correct. And in admitting this, he has (in principle) admitted to a rule that absolutely forbids evolution from ever happening. Think about it. If you walk onto the scene and see a top spinning – what do you necessarily know? A top cannot spin itself. A top will not spin forever. Nor did the top create itself. This is simple, self-evident truth. From just this you would know someone intelligent enough had to make the top and strong enough had to set it in motion.

Consider then, that the top has several languages written on it. A Rosetta stone of sorts. You would see even more overt evidence of intelligent design.

When you come to nature this is exactly what you see. The whole universe, by natural law could not create itself (law of conservation) and could not wind itself up (law of entropy). You see complex orderly processes (languages) everywhere. Mathematical order, chemical order, biological order, etc.

It is not the Watchmaker that is blind – it is the one who denies that there is a Watchmaker.

Dawkins’ silly arguments differentiating between a “designed economy” and an evolutionary economy” (p. 378-379) are just his arbitrary assertion. In a designed economy, says he, there would be no trees and certainly no tall trees? Utter nonsense. It’s almost humorous that he argues such a thing. This certainly shows how caught up he is in his own delusion. “The blind book writer” would be a better title for his book.

Because he does not allow himself to see the Divine purpose in trees, therefore he says God would have done it differently. Since it wasn’t done the way he, Dawkins, an atheist, asserts… therefore there must not be a God. Mr. Dawkins cannot see the forest for all the trees.

Ironically, Dawkins’ admits at least two purposes beyond mere competition (p. 380). But he does so only in an offhanded dismissal. It is not that he cannot see it, but that he chooses not to.

Dawkins can see purpose in hunters and hunted running fast (p. 381). He says this is “no accident”. Yet, his assertion is fallacious. If there was no accident, then there is design. If design then a designer. If there is no designer, then it HAD to be an accident; but who can believe that an accident could really produce all these animals and trees and nature? Cheetahs sprint fast, but endurance and jinking prey can escape. Just chance? Or design?

He argues on about his fanciful, fortuitous accidents that constantly happen… and brings up genes again (p. 383). Silly Dawkins. Has he forgotten that genes are code? Code is a language, instructions, programming. Dawkins position is like taking a work of Shakespeare and saying it “just happened” by natural literary forces without intelligent purpose.

Dawkins plays dumb with his arguments again regarding gazelles and cheetahs (p. 384). He imagines God straining to create the perfect killer and the straining again to make the perfect escaping gazelle. Dawkins has a fascination with mocking God, while (trying) to make himself look wise. Dawkins cannot see the purpose in fast cheetahs chasing gazelles that can escape… because he seeks opportunity to paint God as dumb, self-defeating, not knowing what his left and right hands are doing... or else a sadist. Never mind that the balance between fast cheetahs and escaping gazelles results in culling the sick and weak from the herd without letting it get wiped out. Dawkins has blinded himself to the balance God placed in nature. It’s really not hard to understand, unless he just wants to misunderstand it.

His assertion that no such problems arise in evolution (p, 384) is laughable. His blindness extends not just against God but in favor of his pet theory as well.

He asserts (p. 387) that since a de-escalation requires planning, therefore an escalation does not take planning. That does not follow. He has assumed what he needs to prove. He throws out such silly arguments, left and right, and supposes that his readers are so shallow as to accept it? This is like saying – because disassembling a car takes planning, the assembling of a car does not; or the disassembling of a computer takes planning, but the assembling does not. Utterly laughable. This is the proof Dawkins offers? His arguments are a wet paper bag.

After this, more of the same. Assertions of how Dawkins says God would have done it. Dawkins beats this straw-man to pieces time and again. But let’s address the prudent predatory bit (p. 388). Man is “on our good days and when properly policed” a prudent predator, says Dawkins. What is good, Mr. Dawkins? That is a moral judgment. What meaneth this policing? Who is to police? Who is to make the laws by which policing is done? Is this another product of non-random, fortuitous accidents? And why would God make animals prudent predators? God did not make animals with the mind, conscience and judgment of men. When a cheetah is hungry, it hunts. When a gazelle is chased, it runs. Thus, God designed competition to balance nature. But Dawkins in his infinite wisdom comes on the scene and says, “God would not have done it this way”? Silly, foolish man.

Again, Dawkins beats his straw-man on the issue of suffering (p. 390). He asserts that a moral God would seek to minimize suffering. Dawkins does not consider that God has purpose in allowing suffering to occur. A sister in Christ is of an age where she has lost feeling in one arm. The doctor told her to not cook anything anymore because of the danger this lack of sensation poses. She would not know it if her hand were on fire until she saw it or smelled it. She would not know if she had cut a finger off with a knife… until she saw it. Pain has uses just on this practical level. This applies to all creatures.

But even more, pain teaches. When my children do things that are wrong or dangerous, it may result in corporal punishment. Why? Because I am sadistic? No. Because their discomfort at my hand is controlled, whereas the consequences of their bad choices would be worse. I walked into the kitchen one day to see two of my sons having a tug of war over a kitchen knife. This was no butter knife. I made sure that both of them were very displeased that day. Why? The answer is obvious. I didn’t want them to accidentally gut one of the other in their childish strife over who got the knife first. Pain teaches.

There is more purpose than this, but this is enough to show Dawkins is being (again) willfully ignorant. Again, Dawkins speaks of DNA, RNA and coded instructions. He likens viruses to a “computer virus” (p. 392). How apt a description! Sadly for Mr. Dawkins… a computer virus is designed.

CHAPTER 13: THERE IS GRANDEUR IN THIS VIEW OF LIFE

And here, Dawkins polishes his view up to make it shiney and attractive.

Everything Dawkins says here about nature is answered simply. God did not create nature with a moral sense. Lions are not charged with murder when they eat gazelles. That is a moral judgment. Animals are organic robots. Programmed to behave in certain ways without the capacity to moralize.

As Dawkins expresses moral judgments about animal behaviors (“cruelty” or “callous” p. 400) he is yet again inadvertently admitting that he has the ability to make moral judgments. He is unintentionally admitting that he has something animals do not. His note about grandeur… is also a value judgment. Do dogs compose poetry about nature? Do lions write ballads? What animals do this? Only man. Only man can appreciate beauty and grandeur. Again, an admission that man is different from animals. The fact that mankind pursues art is a testament to the difference between man and mere beasts.

He resumes his comments about DNA on pages 405 and beyond. He erroneously assumes DNA is “built up” from the past. Quite the opposite. DNA was coded by a Programmer from the beginning. This is self-evident by its design, orderliness, and complexity. The “genetic code” and “machine language” (p. 410) he speaks of… is a testimony for design, not evolution.

Regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy); Dawkins properly defines it here (p. 413+). I find it interesting that the definition from that atheistic website is directly contradicted by Dawkins. Dawkins correctly states that increased entropy means that energy is becoming "more impotent to do useful work". That being the case, he has agreed to the principle which destroys evolutionary theory. Since nature is winding down and cannot wind itself up, the question is necessarily implied: What power could wind it up since nature cannot do so?

His argument that the sun explains evolution's viability (p. 415) is a shell game - merely shifting the question around without answering it. The sun is still governed by entropy and still begs the question - how did the sun get started? It is the same shell game with the question of life (biogenesis). Nature says life cannot arise from nonlife (a requirement of evolution). Some evolutionists knowing this say life originated elsewhere and was seeded here. But... that does not answer the question of how life began.

In the end, nature demands that we look beyond nature for the Source of all things.

As Dawkins claims to know more about evolution (which is obviously false); he ironically admits he knows no more than Darwin did about “start of evolution on this planet” (p. 416). Origins will always trouble evolutionists. Always.

He argues it could have been an event of “supreme rarity. It only had to happen once, and as far as we know it did happen only once. It is even possible that it happened only once in the entire universe, although I doubt it.”

The sad thing is, his wishful thinking has dominated his reason. The laws of nature forbid evolution. Whether it be the laws of thermodynamics or the law of biogenesis. Evolution is impossible no matter how much time you give it. No amount of time can make the impossible possible. If there is no God, then there would be no life now. No universe.

Dawkins reveals his fallacious thinking again when he asserts “unimaginable timescales” and climbing “mountains of improbability” with “the ceaseless supply of energy from the sun” (p. 416). Rubbish. Dawkins strives to deny God, but his very arguments would require acts of God, supernatural acts to be true. Spontaneous generation is a fiction from ignorant antiquity, like the earth being flat. He asserts that the beginning had to be simple, but this is false. It could not have been simple, because things do not increase in complexity over time and no living thing is simple. Not even a single celled organism is simple!

As Dawkins quotes of Darwin, “It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter” (p. 417). Such admissions… are revealing. And I agree here. By mere natural means, you may as well waste your time trying to find out the one as the other. (And no, the origin of matter has not been “largely solved”. Mr. Dawkins’ really glosses over another physical impossibility.

Just look at his statements: “Statistically improbable things don’t just spontaneously spring into existence: that is what statistically improbable means.” (p. 417) Even here his bias is visible. The term is not just statistically “improbable” but “impossible”. But even so, in admitting this he nails shut evolution’s coffin. The sheer magnitude of lucky accidents that would be required for life (to happen and progress from simple to complex) is astronomical. Not only would you have to have step by step progress, but in many cases multiple, simultaneous, interdependent progress… You may as well take a penny and expect it to land a trillion times in a row… on its side / edge. Fantasy fiction. Mythology.

His application of his statement is then, “The beginning had to be simple, and evolution by natural selection is still the only process we know whereby simple beginnings can give rise to complex results.” Natural selection does not take a simple thing and make it more complex. It just doesn’t. It weeds out degradations, but does not invent progress. So, barring his prejudicial toy idea, he admits there is no other way for complexity to “arise”. In short, he admits that without evolution by natural selection there is no other natural way to explain it.

I find such statements as this very revealing.

Dawkins’/Darwin’s assertion of some unknown previous state of circumstances more favorable to (supposedly) simple life forming (p. 417) is silly. Scientists have tried for a long time now to create such favorable circumstances and cannot ever get past basic building blocks required for life.

As quoted of Louis Pasteur (p. 418), “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” Rather than life starting “simply”, Pasteur proved by simple means the impossibility of life arising spontaneously. Dawkins’ assertion that spontaneous generation must have happened once, is unscientific. It never happened naturally. It cannot happen naturally. Pasteur proved this. A supernatural creation is not the same as a natural development of life. Life does not develop spontaneously. If it was a supernatural act, then it was not a natural, spontaneous event. If it was a natural, spontaneous event then it was not a supernatural act. Yet Dawkins cannot resist confusing & miss-defining the issue by saying a supernatural cause would also be spontaneous generation.

The law of biogenesis is a fact. Dawkins’ assertion contradicts natural law.

The difficult he faces is evident in page 419. He admits the process whereby life “began” is unknown. How a “self-replicating entity” could begin is beyond him. “This is natural selection, and it could not start until the first self-replicating entity came into existence.” Again, one of those amusingly self-defeating admissions. You cannot have natural selection without complex, self-replicating life. Yet he cannot explain how life even started. The reason is simple. The law of biogenesis. Life only comes from life. It never spontaneously arises. Dawkins is barking up the wrong tree. His book is a waste of ink.

The “catch 22” (p. 420) shows the complex, interdependence of life’s systems. The “irreducible complexity” of life shows, yet again, design and the impossibility of life arising spontaneously.

His speculation has no boundary. From zero evidence of life anywhere else… he arrives at possibly millions of planets with life (p. 422). Of such a mind as Dawkins’ was the Greek pantheon created with all its stories, history, ad nauseum.

Dawkins admits that superficial resemblances can be deceiving (p. 425). Yet he bases his whole book on superficial resemblances being proof of shared ancestry.

The fact of our existence is evidence. A fingerprint.

The life he speaks of, its complexity, the laws of physics, etc. are fingerprints.

His folly is to argue that it is no accident that we are accidentally here (p. 426). As he has tried to argue in his book, non-random randomness… it is just absurd.

APPENDIX: THE HISTORY DENIERS

No. I do not deny history. I deny his mythology and fiction.

Many pages here on stats about what people believe. All irrelevant to the point of our discussion about what the facts are or are not. What gets me in this section is his assertion that creation is scientific falsehood (when he is the one contradicting laws of nature) and also his erroneous assertion that a tax-exempt organizations are being subsidized by the US Tax payer (p. 436). Tax exemption is not the same thing as receiving a subsidy. That’s just silly. Being allowed to keep more of your own money is not the same as collected taxes being paid out to you.

But since he began with lies and misdefinitions, and has filled every single page with them… he may as well add one more before he concludes. At this point… what is one more expression of bias and deceit on his part?





© Copyright NSCOC 2007-2017

page hit counter
Credits: Website templates