TBWM : PREFACE

In speaking on the “greatest of all mysteries” that of our own existence, Dawkins’ says:

The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes… The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurons. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand “electric wires” connecting them to other neurons. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. (xvii)

When I first read this, to say I was surprised would be an understatement. I suppose I had always thought that anyone who was an avid proponent of ToE would try and deny any form of complex design at all. I recall the example that says; were anyone to find a computer in the desert, there is no way they would say that it had formed itself over millions of years, because it is a complex creation, and complex creations are designed. Seeing here that Dawkins actually agrees with the amazing complexity of the human body, I am surprised that he even continued to write the rest of this book after this, the second chapter of his preface. Although, I’m sure that this is just my bias speaking through. There must be a more “reasonable” explanation for how the human body – as well as other complex creations – came about. I am looking forward to reading further and seeing exactly how Dawkins proposes this happened. One thing I do agree with here, is that an explanation is necessary. To just gloss over the marvels of the natural (I cringe when i use this word because of how some others would use it, ie: to explain away anything but the "natural") world would be a loss of the highest magnitude.

Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones. To do the latter, it sometimes isn’t enough to lay the evidence before the reader in a dispassionate way. You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate’s trade. This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise… Far from being dispassionate, it has to be confessed that in parts… this book is written with a passion which… might excite comment. (xviii)

Well, I’m glad to hear it, because then I might be forgiven for being passionate in my own responses to those of Dawkins’, as well as using verses from the Bible where I feel applicable, seeing as this isn't just a dispassionate treatise. He also touches here on the fact that it is possible for the reader to completely ignore the evidence that is presented to them, having to sell the argument to them in order for them to believe the author, which – ultimately – they might still choose to do if it suits their own motives. Likewise, this explains exactly why some people might dispute the authenticity of the Bible and the historic events it records – as well as the death and resurrection of Christ as eyewitness events – in order to hold on to their own views which better suit their lifestyles and worldview; all apparent evidence to the contrary. As the Bible says in Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."

I want to inspire the reader with a vision of our own existence as, on the face of it, a spine-chilling mystery; and simultaneously to convey the full excitement of the fact that it is a mystery with an elegant solution within our grasp. More, I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. (xviii)

We are alike in that, I too, want to share with the reader – whomever you may be – that the origin of our existence is a wonderful and truly fantastic mystery, one that is explained – not, despite Dawkins' assertion, by ToE – but by the fact that we are created by the God of the Bible. I also like his assertion that not only is ToE true but that it is the only possible explanation – in theory – that can explain our origin! I must disagree quite “passionately”. All theories are possible no matter what they may be, without exclusion! Which means, yes, even Flying Spaghetti Monsters, (look that up on the net if you will). One cannot in good faith immediately set up parameters as to what is an acceptable theory and what is not. That would show pre-judgement against the theories one is attempting to exclude; that can come only later. How? Well, all theories have to be weighed by the evidence that they claim gives credence to their explanations. If the weight of any one particular theory is lacking, it must be discarded for those who have a greater support of evidence. In light of that, I would argue that the claim of creation has a stronger claim to being the truth, than that of ToE or any other possible theory, and also happens to nicely solve the mystery of our existence. But more on that later. Suffice it to say for now, that ToE is not – absolutely or by any other means – the only known or possible theory that best explains our origin.

I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be true. (xviii)

How reassuring! It seems that Mr Dawkins' is saying that even though he may be wrong, he believes he isn't, and so that makes it the truth for all of us. Unfortunately for Dawkins, his beliefs – or anyones’ for that matter – have no bearing whatsoever on the Truth, regardless of how passionate he may be for them. As fervently as I may believe the world to be flat, it remains spherical. My belief does not alter the Truth. And in the matter of eternity, why would anyone take the chance of being wrong? You may not agree with me that there is an eternal judgement after death; but how do you know? In regarding Dawkins’ own statement above, he may not be right! Are you going to take the chance that he’s right based on the strength of his convictions? Since when does that affect Truth? Allow me to share what I believe passionately; that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:16) That means that it is true, for God cannot be anything but. It also says in Hebrews 9:27 that “… man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement.” Who is right and who is wrong? Are my convictions any less passionate than Mr Dawkins? Is that the currency that one trades Truth in?
And by the way, what about all the other books that have been written on the subject of disproving ToE? Did they believe any less that they were telling the truth?

Many of us have no grasp of quantum theory, or Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity, but this does not lead us to oppose these theories! Darwinism… seems to be regarded as fair game for critics with any degree of ignorance. (xix)

As I have already mentioned, any theory remains a theory until sufficient evidence comes into being that gives it weight and credence as being a truthful and verifiable fact. Such was the history of Einstein’s theories, and the fields of quantum theory are still advancing daily; however, something could be "discovered" tomorrow that completely turns the science of QT on its head, seeing as it is a science that is subject to new discoveries about itself. One must also remember that Einsteins theories as well as QT are repeatedly experimental, verifiable and falsifiable. ToE can claim none of these things.
Until such evidence comes along that convincingly proves that ToE is indeed truthful – outweighing the current evidence that proves it is not! – how can one call it truthful in any way? And there are plenty of learned scientists – with degrees in more than just “ignorance” – who have problems with ToE and its claims of "evidence". No doubt we will be able to look deeper into these matters later on in the book.

Darwinism… is, indeed, a remarkably simple theory… In essence, it amounts simply to the idea that non-random reproduction, where there is hereditary variation, has consequences that are far-reaching if there is time enough for them to be cumulative. (xix)

My main problem with ToE is this constant referral to it as being, “non-random”. If something is not random, than what is it? The Answers.com has as antonyms of “random” = definite, methodical, ordered, particular, specific, systematic. Surely, then, this must give weight to – even were it true – ToE having some sort of guiding force that knows what its doing? Some designer? To me, this seems like a monstrously bizarre choice of words to describe a process that is claiming to exclude the influence of someone/something who knows what they’re doing… I’m sure my ignorance will be put to ease with further reading.

It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.(xix)

This is a killer for me; he’s practically hit the nail on the head. Is there, perhaps, not a reason why this particularly insightful observation might be true? And again, using words that I would imagine have no place in an argument against a Designer, or Blind Watchmaker, if you prefer.

Take, for instance, the issue of “chance”, often dramatized as blind chance. The great majority of people that attack Darwinism leap… to the mistaken idea that there is nothing other than random chance in it. Since living complexity embodies the very antithesis of chance, if you think that Darwinism is tantamount to chance you’ll obviously find it easy to refute Darwinism! One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth… (xix)

I used to think that this was the case. Apparently I'm wrong. I look forward to reading more about this.

We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, crafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of supernatural deity.

I am inclined to agree, and with good reason. Why shouldn’t it? The Bible says in Romans 1:20 that, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualitites – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Dawkins’ has already conceded that living complexity is a reality. Why then can there not be a deity of some sort? Something powerful enough to have designed the complexity of an entire working universe complete with the thousands of unique examples of living complexity found in the flora and fauna of planet Earth? Is this to not even be considered an option? And if so, why? For what reasoning?

Contrary to all intuition, there is another way and, once you have understood it, a far more plausible way, for complex “design” to arise out of primeval simplicity. A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem unwilling to make it. It is the purpose of this book to help the reader make this leap. (xx)

Why is ToE more plausible than the divine, simply because it excludes it? What makes it so plausible? Is there any evidence even for this “primeval simplicity”? (a gloopy liquid comes to mind) Hopefully this will be revealed with further study. However, I'm inclined to very well turn this whole sentence around and have the ToE believer read it:

Contrary to all intuition, there is another way and, once you have understood it, a far more plausible way, for complex “design” to arise out of the divine. A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem unwilling to make it (Mr Dawkins among them). It is the purpose of the dissection of this book to help the reader make this leap.

I look forward to my continued reading of this book and the comments of those who read this blog.

Beginnings

I am not an expert on philosophy, science or theology by any means. I have no doctorates or degrees of any sort; unless a diploma in Graphic Design counts? What I am though, is a Christian, born-again as the Bible says, by the grace of the risen Christ. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God (ergo: truthful and infallible), given to man to explain all the great questions we have in life: who we are, why we are, what we’re for. There are some who do not believe the same as I on these matters; Richard Dawkins is one of them. He believes that man has come about, not by any sort of divine creation or interference, but through the process of evolution, a naturalistic explanation for our origin made famous by Charles Darwin and written about in his now famous - or infamous, depending on how you see it - book, “The Origin of Species”, which detailed exactly how this Theory of Evolution (ToE) was supposed to have worked.

“The Bind Watchmaker”, written by Dawkins, has been called one of the defining written works on the subject of ToE. As the blurb on the cover of the book says, "This just might be the most important evolution book since Darwin" (John Gribbin, Good Book Guide). Taking up the challenge of an online friend who believes that ToE is a more truthful and accurate account of Man's origin than the supposed “Word of God”, I have undertaken to read Dawkins’ book, making notes as I read through each chapter. This blog, “Dear Mr Dawkins”, is intended to be a record of my progress through the book, as well as a place for any objections, contradictions or revelations that may arise along the way, for all to see and comment on.

In the course of this project, I will attempt – as much as possible - to try and keep any “supernatural” bias I might have out of my note-taking, and to try and be as objective as I can to the explanations and evidence that Dawkins’ proposes explains why we are here at all on this “pale blue dot.” This will undoubtedly not be easy, and no doubt I will be somewhat cynical and condescending at times; but I ask you to please forgive me in this regard, and where at times my bias does rear its head, the reader is more than welcome to correct my attitude.


As to how this blog will work: where-ever bold italics appear, these will be direct quotations taken from the book, “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. Any normal text after that will be my own comments on Dawkins’ viewpoints.

Well, here goes.