Last week’s Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne welcomed its ‘champion’ back to Australia. Richard Dawkins also appeared on the ABC’s Q & A TV debate (in which George Pell was a rather disappointing choice to represent Christianity given his unbiblical responses to questions). However, the emptiness of what Dawkins and the new atheists offer as their basis for rejecting God has been clearly exposed on other occasions (see here for a great example).
Dawkins is so blinded by his own religious adherence to Science that he regularly bleats about the appalling need to convince an increasingly educated society of what seems so obvious to him. He must also, then, be blinded to the fact that there are plenty of rational thinking people educated enough to be unmoved by his shocking bias and inadequate reasoning.
To effectively suppose that the evidence for Creation consists of a few pages of Genesis and the evidence for Evolution is everything that we see in the world around us is a polarising and puerile grab-all that is both simplistic and shallow. In fact, Dawkins’ writings provide virtually no evidence at all, preferring analogies and propositions that he would, of course, lambast creationists for using.
Many of the ‘same-old’ tiresome and troubled arguments are trotted out and then dressed up with updated examples of recent evolution within basic animal types. These are, of course, merely arguments for adaptation and not for descent from a common ancestor over time. The need for countless missing-link fossils is not helped by interposing a handful of barely-connected examples any more than supposing that isolated links must make up a chain. And Dawkins still doesn’t get it – science is no better or more intellectual an answer to those gaps than God because the speculation involved is about faith and not science, anyway! Why can he just not say what is more obvious with each book he writes? Science doesn’t have the answers to questions about our origins.
Dawkins’ crusade is religious because he goes beyond the pure science of actual investigation. He is typically suspicious of people he believes may be profiteering from holding onto Creationism, yet is clearly profiteering from a not-too-well-argued opposite case (that many who have rejected God have a vested interest in maintaining). Too bad that more people don’t think beyond the scientific degrees and the jargon about the palpable misrepresentation of the evidence and its inadequacy in explaining evolution. Too bad, too, that people won’t acknowledge that many with scientific degrees find Creationism more intellectually credible than the vacuous account of Darwinism.
Dawkins may be a latter-day ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, but has again shown that his bark is worse than his bite.