Rumour has it that Richard Dawkins is the smartest man alive.
In fact, he was acknowledged as the leading thinker on the planet in 2013. He might not believe in God but that has not stopped his disciples from turning him into a living deity.
And that is what evolution is all about really. It’s about creating a god out of nothing. When you think about it, that is even more stupendous than believing that God exists in the first place. But we’ll get to that little chestnut in a moment.
First, let’s deal with Mr Dawkins.
I like Richard because he is so easy to slay. And because he’s the greatest evolutionary dragon of them all, beating him is like beating them all. The best part about all of this is that the weapon we can use to exterminate Richard’s pernicious belief in evolution was crafted by his own hands. It’s his infamous and poorly-described magnum opus: The God Delusion.
Dawkins supposedly wrote this book to convince the world that God doesn’t exist. But it’s written like Richard is desperately trying to convince himself of that fantasy. Unfortunately, it is impossible to live comfortably while ignoring the niggling knowledge that you will meet your maker on the day you die. As a result, Richard’s book is an anguished read.
The God Delusion is about 400 pages long. It’s also pretty much entirely drivel. And in all these pages, there are only about five devoted to explaining Richard’s theory of how the universe came into being by itself.
That’s right. The world’s greatest mind has answered the unsolvable question of the spontaneous existence of scientific laws, matter and the human spirit, without the help of God – in just five paperback pages. On the surface, it would appear to be a case of breathtakingly arrogant elegance. But when you delve into those pages you quickly realise that Richard’s brevity is just an embarrassing admission that he doesn’t know much and is making the rest up as he bumbles along. There’s not much science and a lot of science fiction.
Richard’s narrative goes something like this:
Once upon a time, the laws and constants of physics just appeared by themselves and laid the basis for a universe. Furthermore, this unexplained phenomenon happened a billion billion billion times, to create a billion billion billion alternative universes that cannot be proven to exist. Or, our own universe has just replicated itself an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways, which we have no way or proving. Or, and this is the bit I like most, universes ‘reproduce’ in black holes and pass on heredity traits to their children, which can never be proven either.
Whatever theory you choose, it’s all based on the fact that your consciousness has been raised by Darwin. Hence you believe that our universe, capable of supporting life, appeared by chance, even though the laws of that game of possibility still cry out in recognition of a regulator.
Then, after a billion years, the pinnacle of these events culminated in the mind of Richard Dawkins.
It’s like Richard mixed the plot of Planet of the Apes with Scientology.
In fact, Dawkins has written a fairy tale and it should be placed in the fiction section of the $2 shop.
The God Delusion deliberately avoids the question of what legislative power decreed scientific laws in the first place and does not consider who enforces them on every aspect of the material world throughout all of time. Of course, there is only one answer to that: God. The delusion of Dawkin’s book is found only in the mind of those who reject the truth of this awesome power.
Consequently, it is no surprise that such a deluded mind could accept a multitude of fantasies to build the theory of evolution. Apparently giraffes have long necks because the food got higher and higher. Seemingly, birds have wings because Tyrannosaurus Rex started getting hairy and flapping his useless forearms about. Obviously, snakes shed their legs because it made it easier to get around. Of course, plants grew flowers to take advantage of bees who evolved because daffodils were waving in the breeze. Finally, fish turned into wombats who got sick of the land and dived back into the water so as to become graceful aquatic mammals.
And all the in-between variants that were more advanced than the earlier prototypes died out once the new niche was filled, leaving behind just the latest models. And surprisingly, the original remained too. I suppose that’s because after an animal spent 27 million years adapting to meet the pressing environmental need that spurred change in the first place, the condition itself had long since passed. Obviously in those cases evolution was no longer necessary. Or something like that.
The only thing more bizarre is that seemingly once a lower species has given rise to new life-forms, the evolution switch just turns off. That explains why feathery lizards popped up in the bronze age but don’t do so today. No one can seriously suggest that a winged-komodo dragon wouldn’t be an improvement on the current version. But alas, it appears that once the brush of natural-selection has passed by, your species is stuck in a time-warp, no matter how much the climate changes.
My favourite evolutionary story is that fish developed lungs because their water supply lacked oxygen.
No they didn’t. They just did what every fish not designed for oxygen-depleted water does: dies. Every child knows this and I don’t see any scientists deliberately reducing oxygen levels in selected lakes to spur on a new round of evolutionary progress so that it can be captured on candid camera.
The multi-million year evolutionary timeframe is ludicrous when held up against factual reality of imminent death.
And evolution cannot account for the difficulty in explaining sexual reproduction. The whole concept is comical. Here’s supposedly how it went a bazillion years ago.
Older blob: “Kids! Have you got your lunch? We’re heading off to school.”
Younger blob: “Yes. But I’ve got news. I evolved a womb last night.”
Younger blob’s sibling: “Wow! That’s interesting. Just yesterday the blob next door grew a *****. We were all wondering what it is for. Now we know and you can reproduce. Bonus!”
Older blob: “That’s enough! I don’t know what a ***** is but I don’t like you bandying that word around the house. However, in the interests of evolution you may reproduce. I wouldn’t mind a grandchild that is an entirely different species.”
Or, if you like, this scene was replayed over and over again during a brief period of some millions of years (insert a random number here). However, this time asexually-reproducing organisms gradually grew bits and pieces that were not fully developed, of no use and which were ‘kept’ until eventually they were found to be just what was necessary for complementary sexual reproduction. Of course, this was helped by the fact that an organism of the opposite sex just happened to swing by at the right place and time. See, all the pieces of the puzzle can fall into place! And if you believe that, you will believe in anything.
True science does not support evolution. The fossil record only shows that previously there were animals alive that do not exist today. That makes perfect sense. Things have been lost. Including, it seems, all common sense.
There is variation within kinds. There is not variation of kinds. In fact, if such a thing was possible, there would be no kinds at all. There would simply be a spectrum of life, moving out from the point of origin, like a ripple in the water. And it would be constantly regenerating, like a stream of bubbles in a pond, causing a continual line of ripples within ripples. The factors that resulted in the spontaneous eruption of life would ensure that this process occurred over and over again. There would be no way of knowing that an organism was so many billion years old because it could have come from the life that sprouted yesterday.
And on top of this, there would probably even be multiple points of origin for life. The resultant chaos would be a mishmash of biological existence, capable of reproducing on multiple boundaries. There would be no species, only individuals.
But we do not have that. We see order, reflecting the character of the Creator. We do not observe evolution, either in its supposed process or in its effects.
And what we certainly do not see is life rising out of the rock. But if Dawkin’s beliefs held water, we should. In fact, it is simply nonsensical to argue that planetary conditions an aeon ago were ripe for the spontaneous formation of life, but that conditions which support the immense variety of life we see today are incapable of transforming pond-scum into newly-evolved bacteria.
The real reason people like Dawkins cling to evolution has got nothing to do with biology and everything to do with killing off God. But the theory cannot do this. It has failed in its task. Miserably.
And perhaps the most ironic joke is that, as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the end of evolution is the creation of a new god.
Evolution espouses the belief in the ongoing development of life to newer and higher forms of organisation. It’s pinnacle today is man. And if you subscribe to this religious belief, which Dawkins himself describes as being able to ‘raise consciousness’, tomorrow man will be a little more capable and conscious than today. Or at some point he will be superseded by a new, more advanced being. Eventualy the secrets of the universe will be unlocked and even able to be controlled and replicated. Dawkins might not believe that god exists today, but his theory postulates that a supreme being with ever higher levels of consciousness will be running the show tomorrow.
And if natural selection is so powerful when it is not controlled, imagine the possibilities when a sentient being starts directing the orchestra. It is the ultimate fool’s dream. But it is one that Dawkins cannot help but embrace. He wants to replace the true God that exists outside of time and impose the false god of the terrible future of man’s arrogance.
As history has always shown, such arrogance always ends in tears. God will not be mocked.
And for all Dawkin’s protestations, it is simply absurd to argue that God does not exist or that our world is purely material. It is spiritual as well. We know this precisely because we know of immaterial things that can’t be examined by science.
There is no temperature of love. There is no length of justice. There is no equation capable of determining the chemical composition of hope or the area of charity. Goodness is not based on biological cells and evil (which is a defect in something good) has no circumference.
But we all know these things exist.
These things are the characteristics of our souls. They are outside of the realm of physical science, but they are manifested in our physical world. In fact, the goodness or otherwise of our physical actions is determined by how we implement these virtues or vices in the world we inhabit.
This is proof that the material world is secondary to the spiritual. In fact, it only exists so that we can attain a higher level of knowledge – that of God Himself. So while it is good for scientists to help us understand the physical world, it is a pointless exercise when they do so in a spiritual vacuum.
I guess this is the crux of Dawkin’s dilemma. He wants to have a perfect understanding of the physical world we live in. But he also wants to pretend that the physical world is the totality of reality. It’s like trying to understand a building but pretending its foundations don’t exist.
To use another analogy, if the totality of reality was represented by a sheet of paper, the physical sciences are only capable of examining a small square marked off in the corner. They can never deliver a full understanding of the entirety of our existence. To do that you must literally think outside the box.
Furthermore, God exists outside of that box of the physical world. Or, more precisely, the physical world is merely a reflection of some of the essence of God. And none of us have a mind capable of looking into that darkened mirror and comprehending all of who and what God is. Our minds are limited. There is more chance of teaching an ant algebra than comprehending the immeasurable perfection that is our Creator.
That is hard to take for a scientist. The inherent humility involved becomes more difficult, I suppose, the smarter the scientist is.
But to struggle against this is to hold onto an idiosyncratic belief contradicted by reality. It becomes a form of mental disorder: a delusion. And that is exactly what Dawkins has – the godless delusion.