For anyone whos read The God Delusion...?

Question

I am reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and I am struggling to understand some things. I understand (or at least I think I do) what hes explaining about natural selection as evolution. What Im failing to understand is how this constitutes as no need for a god. To me, natural selection does not explain the origin of life, only how its evolved. Am I completely missing something, or do I need to just keep reading, (I havent finished the book yet).

LOL JonJon, seems your right about that.

Answer 1

1.) Natural selection and evolution aren't SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life -- only of the speciation of that life once the ball got rolling.

2.) Dawkins does talk about the possible origins of life later on in the book, when he mentions the anthropic principle -- the creation of those first self-replicating molecules may have been a very very unlikely thing indeed; but however unlikely, we know that it happened at least once, because here we are talking about it! And however unlikely, it only needed to happen once; after that, it makes duplicates of itself and evolution starts.

3.) Keep in mind -- there are (conservatively estimating) a billion billion planets in the universe, and they've been mixing and matching chemicals for billions of years -- it's not the "had to get it right on the very first try" proposition the theists would like you to believe it is.

4.) Postulating God as a solution doesn't solve anything, because you then have to explain where God came from; and if it's very very unlikely for those first molecules to just come together at random, a being capable of making such things happen is several orders of magnitude even MORE unlikely.

Keep reading -- it will be well worth your time!

Answer 2

Dawkins books is nothing but a rehash of ideas that have been around for thousands of years. As far back as 800-500 BC the early Greek philosophers where raising all the same arguements (and having them answer almost the same as we do today).

Amoung the question that was raised even then was the question of evolution. It is not an idea that began with Darwin. It has been around for as long as we can find records of what people thought about the origin of life. Darwin merely proposed a new model (usually called "survival of the fittest") as a force which drives evolution.

But the bigger issue become - does evolution automatically disprove God? When one reads the Bible, it states in fewer then 1000 words that God created the universe. It gives very little in the way of what process, procedures, physics, etc. he used to do it. What if the process he used was to design the first life in such a way that it could adapt and grow into everything we see today? That in my mind is just as miraculous as an instant creation. And requires just as much Intelligence to do it.

Dawkin has an interesting writing style, and a lively, confrontational, and often rude speaking/debating style that has gain him popularity. He presents his ideas well, and with enough passion to rally those who agrue around him.

But when you take the time to actually analyze his arguements, they are just rehashes of ideas that have been around for centuries. And every single one has been answered in a dozen different ways over those same centuries.

When you are done with Dawkins, may I suggest that you try giving the opposite side of the arguements an equal chance. Pick up a book by CS Lewis called "Mere Christianity" and read it. It will answer a lot of the question that Dawkins raises.

Answer 3

No one claims to know more about the origin of life than those that choose Creationism. The scientific theory is that they don't know, they think they know and the most attractive thing to me is that they will eliminate possibilities in search of the truth, while never claiming "to know" or to convince people that science is the way to go.

But one thing that science and religion do share is the fact that what ever comes from their methods is exploited to the point of people losing their lives. I bring this up because there are so very few people in the world who take science and religion for what they are. Instead, there are too many people who are devoutly one or the other and end up doing a disservice to both.

I'm not religious but I am spiritual. There is no god, no religion except to do the next right thing for the right reason. At least it saves me a lot of money, the money that is being used to build these elaborate cathedrals in a time when there are people starving to death on the streets, people working and living in poverty, and people in need of medical attention that cannot afford it.

Sure, a lot of money is spent on the sciences. And some of it actually helps us, but it too, is not above the abuses that we humans have been guilty of. So lets endeavor to bring them closer, and reading that book can help.

Answer 4

Don't bother reading anything by Richard Dawkins. He is not a real scientist, but simply the High Priest of Evolution. Furthermore, I don't really think he is an atheist. His words and actions suggest he is more of an anti-theist. He is not the only one, but he is by far one of the most outspoken. Don't get me wrong; he is quite smart, but he is so committed to evolution that it clouds his reason.
You are right about natural selection. It can only weed out inferior creatures; not create life. Select means 'choose.' How can you choose something if it does not exist? Darwin's book "On the Origin of Life by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" never mentions how life originated. Talk about misleading titles!
If evolution were true, then God is not the creator. Or at least not the God of the Bible. The very foundation of the Bible is that God made and owns the universe.
As a young-earth creationist I study about this sort of thing quite a bit. Ironically, no matter how much I use reason, science, logic, and facts I cannot escape the stigma of being a bible-thumping, born-again bonehead who hates science and refuses to listen to reason. According to people like Dawkins I am deluded because I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is dead and its corpse stinks, but many people are still trying to prop it up so they can continue to scoff at God's Word.
Throw Dawkin's book away. I will only make you more ignorant.

Answer 5

Evolution can't really account for the origin of life. Scientifically, it's a matter of conjecture. There are several models that attempt to explain how life may have originated, but none of them are conclusive. (Although even if we had a conclusive explanation, it still wouldn't convince "religious" people.)

Natural selection is simply the mechanism whereby successful traits are passed on while unsuccessful traits die out. Dawkins is probably just saying that "God" is unnecessary to this process. Indeed the only time "God" is useful is when you really don't know the answer, because then you can just say "God did it" and call it a day.

I'm always kind of annoyed when people conflate evolution with atheism, as if one necessarily implies the other. They're two completely different subjects. Evolutionary biologists as such are totally unconcerned with the God question, either to prove or disprove; meanwhile atheism proper has nothing to say about biology. If most biologists are atheists, that's only because they tend to base their judgments on evidence, and there is, of course, no evidence for God.

P.S. - Reading the other remarks - isn't it amazing how easy it is to bring Christians back to their book-burning roots?

Answer 6

It is amazing how many have read this book and been taken in by it,doesn`t it strike you as strange how from all human history and the greatest thinkers it has produced that Richard(the Ego has landed) Dawkins has the definitive answers?

Answer 7

Genes duplicate. The most fit ones survive to duplicate more. The others die. Organisms become complex without the need of a designer.

Answer 8

Just trash it. That's the right place for it.

Evolutionists are not concerned with HOW life began. They only propose how it advanced after life began.

That does not free them from the responsibility of explaining how life began because creationism believes that all life began at about the same time.

Answer 9

Evolution by itself doesn't disprove god - it disproves creationism - everything else in religion is veridically worthless, but one thing at a time, right?

Answer 10

Good point !