From former Cambridge professor, author and famed atheist, Richard Dawkins:
“Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in “Natural Theology,” that the creation of life was God’s greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we’d amend the statement: Evolution is the universe’s greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.
Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists’ hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universe—though sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another. And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life. The argument in favor of alien life’s existing at all is weaker than the argument that—if it exists at all—it will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe.”
[...]
“Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”
The rest of this article may be found at The Wall Street Journal.
————————————————————————–
From a Facebook response written by Beth Duren Lancaster:
“The first question that comes to my mind is, What if evolution was God’s idea? Would there then be no use for God after evolution was set into place? If God invented evolution, then God would be the author/designer/creator/sculptor of evolution. Would we say that since we have the completed works of Shakespeare, we’ve no need for the Bard himself? We have lightbulbs (“greener” and far better than the original), so no need for Edison? The Mona Lisa hangs on display, so da Vinci is useless to us? Now, I can’t stress enough my awareness that these are far from perfect comparisons (I don’t know of any Edison disbelievers), but I’m not at all trying to offer any sort of proof for the existence of God so perhaps it doesn’t matter. Why would an invention or creation (maybe too charged a word for Dawkins) render the inventor or creator useless?
Dawkins works from the premise that God does not exist and has never existed. So that certainly aids in his conclusion that evolution renders God useless, but it’s definitely no disproof of God. Perhaps that isn’t Dawkins’ intent, but then what would be the point of the article? (And when is that ever NOT Dawkins’ intent?) Dawkins’ is supposedly highly skilled in his own scientific field, but has always appeared to me to be a real lightweight in fields out of his specialty. In other words, he’s a pretty lousy philosopher and seems nearly devoid of any sort of grasp of theology.
I do completely agree with the ending of his article. Either God exists scientifically or God doesn’t exist at all. There’s no ‘true for you, not true for me’ when it comes to God’s existence. Be a devout believer, a seeking agnostic, or a solid atheist, but good grief don’t think you’re doing anyone any favors by being everything to all. If you take a stand for nothing out of fear of offending someone, you give up all chances of ever challenging anyone. If our motivation is to challenge another person by sharing beliefs and discussing differences in effort to build relationships and better both parties, then we shouldn’t have to fear offending people. Believers and non-believers can both challenge each other, but too often our motivation is to convert just to prove ourselves right, and that’s simply a picture of the inward fears of humanity. Sometimes stepping on each others toes can actually be a good thing, but we shouldn’t feel the need to put on combat boots before we do it.”
Recent Comments