The Dawkins Delusion

It is surprising how many intelligent people still believe that there is scientific evidence that God does not exist, or that it proves God is very unlikely. Many claim to be unbiased logical thinkers, but few are. They still follow the lead of Richard Dawkins, who's ideas of why a Creator could not exist  have been rejected by the majority of scientists. His book "The God Delusion" has been criticized by many of his faithful fans, who find the book one of the worst he has ever written. Dawkins has declared those who believe in a Creator to be delusional and ignorant, going so far as to claim that only atheists are the intelligent ones. The problem is that Dawkins made Himself look unintelligent by his rantings about religion being the cause of the evils in the world, claiming that there has never been any evil committed in the name of atheism. His remark that he can prove that the probability of God's existence is almost zero is ,in itself, a betrayal to science. His suggestion that although the majority of the founding fathers believed in God,some of them were probably atheists. Not only does that prove nothing, it is an unscientific approach and is exactly what Dawkins argues against Christians using.

   Dawkins uses the Drake equation, that calculates the probability of life on other planets, in a contradictory argument against the probability of God. According to Dawkins scientists should keep an open mind on the issue, but states that the same equation proves the unlikely hood of God existing. Apparently having an open mind does not include religion. He resorts to fabricating His own statistics to try to prove that he is among the majority in His beliefs. Again He fails miserably in logic and intelligence. He claims that only one or two Nobel prize winning scientists out of hundreds are Christians. Since Dawkins has not won a Noble prize, that statement proves nothing other than, according to His own reasoning, he is either a Christian or not as intelligent as the average atheist.

   One of Dawkins biggest errors is believing that evolution requires leaving out a Creator. He rambles on about natural selection being an argument against a creator. He wrote that any complex entity requires an explanation for its existence and that a Creator would have had to be more complex than His creation. His claim that natural selection is the only known mechanism that can produce complexity from simplicity, has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Natural selection explains how life changes over time, it does not explain how life began, or how simplicity acquired the intelligence to become complex. Dawkins attempts to use evolution as evidence that life could not have been created falls short of logic, since they are not the same thing. Dawkins came close to logic by writing that life could just as well have happened without God. Scientifically that is possible, but Dawkins dislike for anything religious would not allow Him to write without taking punches at those who would not let Him win the debates with Creationists.

   Dawkins stated that intelligence evolved and any super intelligence could not have existed before life, claiming that the first self replicating entity was powerful. He has stated that any creator would have been a super intelligent entity, and would be very improbable. His claim that natural selection produces complexity out of simplicity is contradictory to a creator having to be super intelligent to have created such a complex system. It is just as possible for God to have created a simple system with the ability to evolve as it is for a simple system to have accidentally evolved into complexity. In one of His many contradictions Dawkins attempts to prove the unlikely hood of a super intelligent being by limiting His power and intelligence to one who is obligated to create only what we see today, in a way that only an atheist scientist can understand. It is apparently beyond his understanding that God could have build a self sufficient and self replicating simple system with the ability to evolve into a complex system. Dawkins also failed to mention that it took a complex set of laws governing the interaction between atoms and molecules for  evolution to begin. Who created the Atom? Did it always exist?

    Dawkins seems to have forgotten that the scientific theory of life rising from non life without some outside intervention is highly improbable. He seems to believe in the possibility of  life having developed despite the odds against it, but disputes creation because of the odds against it. Science offers an explanation of accidental life, which has been proven impossible to duplicate. A scientific theory is based on evidence that explains why something exists. Not only can a theory be tested, but it can also be proven false. While it is possible to test the theories of evolution, it is not possible to test the theories of how life began, with satisfactory results. Such experiments have produced amino acids that are used to make protein in living cells, but they also yielded nitrates which destroy amino acids. The tests require an outside source to produce amino acids. They also depend on knowing the condition of the earths atmosphere at the time life began. The only accurate results of the tests is that scientists are unable to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients.


   Scientists seem to have the same predicament that Dawkins uses to prove the improbability of a creator. He asked the question, Who created God, but cannot answer the question of who created the organic molecules. Did they create themselves? Did they always exist?  When scientists can answer either of those questions, they will also have answered the question of how God came to be. The theories, some of which cannot be accurately called theories, about the origins of life are varied. All are accepted by some scientists and rejected by others. It is not explained by evolution, which is concerned only with changes in inherited traits through generations. Abiogenesis is a belief that life sprang from non life. It does not explain how it took place. Creation explains how life sprang from non life. Creation does not explain or leave out the possibility of evolution.

    The Bible itself hints at evolution and does not claim that every living thing was created, only that every kind was created. Genesis 1:11-12 states that the grass and trees were left to recreate more of it's kind."
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
  12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

   "Genesis 1:20, when taken as it is written, states that not only did the ocean recreate life, it also brought forth the flying creatures.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


   Richard Dawkins relied heavily on the theories of Darwin and natural selection, but Dawkins has added His own twist in that Darwin believed natural selection is a blind process, while Dawkins believes it is a complex steering process which is not left to chance. Dawkins failed to mention that evolution also depends on random mutation. Dawkins probability argument would have to take into consideration a universe that randomly mutated.

   In summary, Richard Dawkins understands that life began as a simple system, but could not have been created as a simple system.Richard Dawkins believes in the possibility of extraterrestrials with the possibility of being more advanced that earthlings, but not in the possibility of God. He believes it is very,very unlikely that an intelligent Christian exists. In reality it is very, very unlikely that one can be a genuine scientist and believe the way Dawkins does. Those who believe in Dawkins are indeed, delusional. Richard Dawkins has begun to self destruct. Since He is an atheist and too intelligent to cause his own demise, perhaps God did it.

Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists anymore. That seems to be a very wise decision given His track record on unintelligent rambling. A 400 page book on the scientific reasons why God cannot exist can only be filled with nonsense.  Perhaps he should have listened to his publisher and stayed away from attacking God and Christians. Believing that he could scientifically prove the unlikely hood of a Creator shows that he is much more delusional than those he attacks. Those who quote him are using a delusional scientist to prove Christians are delusional. They also quickly lose credibility.