Nuggets of Wisdom

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Dawkins Dubiously Debates Dufus About Darwinism

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins appeared Wednesday on The Colbert Report to discuss his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. As with most guest appearances on Colbert’s show, the discussion was completely farcical and pointless.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Dawkins
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

But despite the incoherent babbling of Colbert, Dawkins made a few points which should be addressed.

There is no purpose to life, but it’s not an accident.

But can something have no purpose without being an accident? Isn’t an accident something that does not happen on purpose?

To find the answer to these questions, allow me to consider the definitions of purpose and accident:

purpose: 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained.

accident: 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>.

The definition of accident by itself provides the answer: “met by accident rather than design.” Since Dawkins does not believe in design, he must therefore believe in accident.

In order for something to have purpose, it must have been “set up as an object or end to be obtained.” If something does not have purpose, it was not set up, but was rather “unforeseen,” “unplanned,” and lacking “intention or necessity,” thus making it an accident. Therefore, either something has purpose and is not an accident, or it does not have purpose and is an accident. Dawkins cannot have it both ways.

If life does not have purpose as Dawkins proposes, it must have happened by accident; otherwise, it has purpose. And if it has purpose, it must have been set up. And if it had been set up, then someone or something must have set it up. And the only thing that could have set up life is a First Cause—i.e.: God. Therefore, God exists because life has purpose and did not happen by accident.

I’ve given you the evidence for evolution. Where is your evidence for God?

Aw, yes: Dawkins poses his famous straw man argument: Evolution is true; therefore God does not exist.

Let’s assume that there is sufficient evidence to prove evolution true. Does that mean God does not exist? It may mean creationism is false, and therefore the God of creationism does not exist. It may mean a literal interpretation of Genesis is false, and therefore the God of a literal Genesis does not exist. But it does not mean that God—even the God of the Bible—does not exist. Who is to say that God could not have used evolution to create life? Who is to say that Genesis must be interpreted literally rather that figuratively? Just because evolution is true does not mean God does not exist.

As for the evidence of God, allow me to quote Albert Einstein: “I believe in [a God] who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”