When Richard Dawkins met the Holy Spirit

It is always interesting when the protagonists of two opposing camps HS and RDmeet. Dr Richard Dawkins is the famous author of The God Delusion. His main effort is to convince people that the God of the Bible does not exist and His Book (the Bible) was the product of ancient and ignorant tribes men. So it has no special significance or value. One day he met the Holy Spirit, the inspiration behind the 66 books of the Bible.

What was the first question the Holy Spirit asked Dawkins after the introductions?

# 1. Evolution. He was curious to know what inspired Richard to devote almost his whole life to promote something that is manifestly untrue (evolution), and based upon that, decide that the Creator God does not exist and therefore the Bible is not true?

  • Richard’s reply was that Darwin conclusively proved that there is no Creator God. When prompted to show where in the book, On the Origin of Species Darwin proved it, Dawkins could only point to the artificial breeding of dogs, pigeons, and domestic cattle. The implication and deduction was that life forms are able to change from one species to another over time.
  • Logically, the Holy Spirit pointed out that the dogs always remained dogs. As the dogs became more ‘specialised’ they lost more and more genetic information. Their DNA deteriorates. So they will never develop into more complex life forms like lions or bears.

# 2. Origin of life. When the Holy Spirit asked him about the origin of life, Richard came alive. He had the answer: scientists are working on it and will soon discover how first life on planet earth began. Besides, he was sure that life would be found on other planets. Asked about the names of those planets (remember God made them all, knows them each by name and what they are like – Isaiah 40:26), Dawkins again affirmed that they will still be discovered. So, in the mean time people have to believe evolution, without evidence?

# 3. Big Bang. Then the Holy Spirit queried him about his strange reliance on future events, and his refusal to accept that God has a future plan to create new heavens and a new earth.

  • Richard lamely explained that God does not exist. He did not create the universe, because it was the result of the big bang: nothing expanded and formed it all. Nothing gave rise to all of nature we see around us.
  • So the Holy Spirit asked him why he cannot believe that God, as the logical cause, created everything from nothing? He just replied that he does not like God and does not want to be in His company. The Holy Spirit reassured him that he has nothing to fear. There is no chance that Richard will ever be in God’s presence, unless he decides that God is not so bad.

At that the Holy Spirit greeted Richard cordially, hoping the man would avert the coming catastrophe when he dies and faces God.

Richard Dawkins and the failed prayer experiment

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes an experiment to prove whether prayer is effective or not.Dawkins and first life The conclusion was that prayer is useless.1  He positively gloats over it. One experiment has conclusively proven that prayer does not work.

 

One would expect that Dr Dawkins would apply the same criterion when it comes to evolution. He is an atheist, and sincerely believes evolution is a fact according to his book, The Greatest Show on Earth.2   It is logical that if evolution is true, one experiment should prove the natural beginning of life on earth. The Miller-Urey experiment did not prove it. With the discovery of DNA, a new field opened up and many experiments on the origin of life have been done and hypotheses advanced, like the RNA world, et cetera. They all failed. 3

 

Does that mean Dawkins let go of his idea that evolution is true? No. One failed experiment on prayer is reason for absolute joy, because God is either dead or deaf.  However to conclude from failed experiments on the origin of life, that evolution is not true, is sacrilege. It would be idiotic to reason like that. Different criteria apply. Consistency is deplorable.

 

He is clever though. He made provision for an escape route. He said, ‘We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life, and we might even be a little bit anxious if a too plausible theory were to be discovered.’ 4  It is foresight to warn people that the chances are very slim that there is a natural origin of life. Yet he assures them that they give the problem their full attention and are working on it. It is like the palaeontologist who said that the fossil record is not important in Darwinism. 5 That is because the fossils fail to support Darwin’s idea.

 

Dawkins was voted one of the top intellectuals by Prospect Magazine.One can see why he is an intellectual. When it comes to the Bible, it is ‘myth, myth, myth.’ When it comes to evolution, it is ‘fact, fact, fact.’  Failed experiments on the origin of life mean nothing, but a single failed prayer experiment is meaningful. The reason the natural beginning of life is such a problem is because of DNA. To create an intelligent code in the laboratory, like DNA, is impossible. From human experience we know that only intelligence can create codes, instruction manuals or recipes (which is what DNA is).

 

Does Dawkins give up on evolution after the failed experiments (not experiment, experiments)? Not at all, he is thoroughly convinced evolution is fact.  Why doesn’t he apply the same criterium to evolution as to the Bible? You must be kidding. That would threaten his own faith in Darwin, and that cannot be allowed.

 

Richard Dawkins explains to us why atheists are reasonable, logical, honest people.

 

References

  1. R Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006, p 61-66.
  2. R Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, 2009, p 416-422.
  3. Black smokers, thermal hot springs, comet shockwaves, RNA world, self organisation: D O’Leary, Origin of Life, Could it all have come together in one very special place, March 12, 2014, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/origin_of_life082851.html.
  4. Reference 2, p 421.
  5. M Ridley, New Scientist 90:830 (1981), cited by D Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, 1993, p 113.
  6. Back page, The God Delusion.

 

%d bloggers like this: