Richard Dawkins and “The God Delusion”–Natural Selection and Psychosis (Part 13)

Natural Selection, YEC, GG, and ID, and Another Dawkins-Ham Connection
Richard Dawkins describes natural selection as a gradual process of adaptations in life, and distinguishes it from both “design” and “chance.” As he states, “natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbably, but not prohibitively so” (147). To put it another way: “Evolution…goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy! The principle of climbing the gentle slope as opposed to leaping up the precipice is so simple one is tempted to marvel that it took so long for a Darwin to arrive on the scene to discover it” (147).

On this point, I, as well as a growing number of Christian biblical scholars and scientists alike, agree. So when Dawkins says, “Real life seeks the gentle slopes at the back of Mount Improbable, while creationists are blind to all but the daunting precipice at the front” (148), I have to say, “Well, you’re right…about young earth creationists. Not only do they practice bad science, they practice bad biblical exegesis and theology.

The same goes for Dawkins’ critique on the “God of the Gaps” theory that says, “Whatever science can’t explain…that’s the part God did!” The obvious problem with this idea is that, as science continues to discover more and more of the universe, the “God” of the “God of the Gaps theory” slowly gets explained out of existence.

And then there’s the “Intelligent Design” movement. I long have come to realize that I.D.’s basic argument (i.e. that there is so much complexity in the world, that it points to the existence of an intelligent designer) isn’t really a scientific argument. It is a metaphysical one. I, too, look at the wonders of creation and think that it points to the existence of God—I’m just not making a scientific argument or observation when I say that. And that’s okay.

In any case, the more I read about it, the more obvious it seems that the current I.D. movement is nothing more than creationism with the words “Intelligent Design” substituted for “God.” The Dover court case pretty much proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to learn more about it, let me suggest Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.

Now, although Dawkins is right to point out the clear scientific problems with YEC, GG, or ID, he is completely wrong to equate any of those with biblical Christianity. Yes, natural selection is the central paradigm in biology, but it is not in any way, shape, or form “proof” against the existence of God. Again, this takes me back to a Dawkins-Ham parallel: they are both playing on the same ball field, but they are playing the wrong game. To say that natural selection “disproves” God is about as logical as saying E=MC2 “disproves” God, or some Algebraic formula “disproves” God, or the fact that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen somehow “proves” God doesn’t exist. It is a nonsensical connection. Ken Ham does the exact same thing, only in the opposite direction, but the fact remains, both men are running up and down a football field, trying to sink three-pointers and hit homeruns.

The Origin of Life…and Psychosis?
When it comes to the origin of life, though, Dawkins does manage to state an obvious fact that should have prevented him from writing a book about how science can prove there is no God. He states, “The origin of life…lies outside the reach of that [Darwinian] crane, because natural selection cannot proceed without it” (168). In other words, Dawkins admits that Darwinian natural selection can only address the diversity of life that already exists. It cannot address origins or anything that lies “outside the reach” of the material world. He is, for all practical purposes, acknowledging the limits of biological science. This is a very reasonable and good thing.

…but then Dawkins continues, and states his belief that science, particularly natural selection, “disproves” the existence of God. For Dawkins, believing in the existence of God is just “…deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained” (171). I find such a comment rather humorous. After all, what Dawkins is doing is dismissing the idea of a God who is beyond the natural order on the grounds that His existence cannot be explained, presumably, by the methods of scientific naturalism. If God is beyond nature, then complaining that He can’t be explained naturally is rather absurd.

Amazingly still, Dawkins goes one step further. He states, “I see no alternative but to dismiss it [theism’s claim of God], while at the same time marveling at the number of people who can’t see the problem and seem genuinely satisfied by the ‘Divine Knob-Twiddler’ argument. Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability” (172).

Please, read the above quote again. Not only does Dawkins mischaracterize all Christians (and theists) who believe in God as people who believe God is a “Divine Knob-Twiddler,” he also attributed belief in God to a psychological disorder and claimed that people who believe in God suffer from an “unraised consciousness.” And to top it off, he actually claimed  that natural selection has “raised the consciousness” of biologists. Where to begin?

Of course there are some religious people out there who cling to a very unscientific (and unbiblical) concept of God as a “Divine Knob-Twiddler,” but do all Christians hold that view? Of course not, and Dawkins knows that, but it’s clear he’s more interested in being a provocateur and propagandist than he is in actually presenting the truth.

As for his claim that belief in God is a psychological disorder, he’d better start building a whole lot of sanitariums, because over 90% of the world’s population is clearly insane. In fact, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Michelangelo, Aquinas, and modern scientists Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne—we’d have to lock all of them up. The fact is, Dawkins’ claim is simply a rehashing of the old argument of Sigmund Freud, whose theories hardly anyone holds anymore. Yes, Freud opened the door to the field of psychoanalysis, but his writings on religion, despite his claims, are completely unscientific and completely out of his field of expertise. The same holds for Dawkins. He proves himself a parroting dwarf compared to Freud, and Freud was midget himself when it came to the topic of religion.

Finally, at the risk of sounding too sarcastic, I never knew that biologists are the favored sons of natural selection. Evidently, their consciousness is so raised that they are able to write books that argue that science, even though it cannot address anything beyond the natural order, can actually disprove God’s existence on the ground that it cannot be explained scientifically. I just can’t understand it. I must be suffering from psychosis.

Oh, That’s So 19^th Century!
Dawkins ends his fourth chapter with a brief story of an encounter he had at Cambridge with a number of theologians. Dawkins displayed some rather thin skin when he took particular issue with these theologians when they told him that many of his arguments were “so 19^th-century.” He writes,

 “…this particular piece of name-calling seemed a bit rich coming, as it did, from an individual who justified his own Christian belief by invoking what he called the historicity of the New Testament. It was precisely in the nineteenth century that theologians, especially in Germany, called into grave doubt that alleged historicity, using the evidence-based methods of history to do so.” (186)

“What, then, is the coded meaning of ‘You are so nineteenth-century’ in the context of an argument about religion? It is code for: ‘You are so crude and unsubtle, how could you be so insensitive and ill-mannered as to ask me a direct, point-blank question like ‘Do you believe in miracles?’ or ‘Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin?’” (187)

Well, I wouldn’t call it so much “name-calling” as I would simply call it pointing out that Dawkins’ arguments really do come from 19th century scholars, many of whose arguments have been long since discarded. Dawkins evidently doesn’t know this, though. That’s why he takes offense. He feels threatened, because he knows deep down, when it comes to the area of Theology and Biblical Studies, he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.

In this respect, Richard Dawkins, once again, proves himself to be Ken Ham’s doppleganger. For just as Ken Ham routinely belittles and ridicules scientists who contradict his long-since outdated and simplistic scientific claims, Richard Dawkins routinely belittles and ridicules biblical scholars who contradict his long-since outdated and simplistic claims about the Bible. He’s right to call out fundamentalists who attempt to disprove advances in modern biology, archeology, and genetics by appealing to long-disproven scientific theories of a bygone era, but he is completely blind to the obvious fact that he is doing the exact same thing when it comes to biblical studies.

In my next post, I will discuss Dawkins’ “Meme Theory.” I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase, “internet meme.” Now, Dawkins is no Al Gore—he didn’t invent the internet. But he is the one who coined the term “meme.” You’ll be surprised to find out what he actually says memes are.