Richard Dawkins and “The God Delusion”: Natural Selection, I.D., and the Existence of God (Part 12)

Now that I have taken a good 3-4 weeks off from analyzing The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, I think it is time to get back to it. I have already written 11 previous posts on the first few chapters of The God Delusion, so now I would like to pick things up with chapter 4, where Richard Dawkins tackles the question of the existence of God. Now, as the title of the chapter suggests, “Why there almost certainly is no God,” Dawkins tries to prove that there is, in fact, no God. He does this by addressing the “Design vs. Natural Selection” issue. Before I put in my two cents on this issue, though, let me, as clearly as possible, put forth the gist of Dawkins’ argument.

Dawkins begins his argument by referring to the “The Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument”: the argument that says no one would ever think that a Boeing 747 could ever just “evolve” through random chance. Dawkins’ response to this argument is as follows:

“This, in a nutshell, is the creationist’s favorite argument—an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn’t understand the first thing about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a theory of chance, whereas—in the relevant sense of chance—it is the opposite.” (138)

Dawkins then proceeds to argue that “design” and “chance” are not the only alternatives when it comes to understanding life on earth. Natural selection, properly understood, seeks out and argues for “graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity” (139). This slow, gradual process explains the slow emergence of complex organisms from earlier simple organisms, “without any deliberate guidance” (141). In conclusion, Dawkins states, “Natural selection…shatters the illusion of design within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be suspicious of any kind of design hypothesis in physics and cosmology as well” (143).

To an extent, Dawkins is correct. In fact, the “godfather” of the theory of intelligent design was William Paley, the 18^th century Englishman who first put forth the idea that since the entire universe was essentially a giant machine, that that meant there had to be an ultimate being who designed the machine. His problem was that while he thought he was defending the notion of the Christian God, in reality he was defending the Enlightenment’s notion of a deistic god. In any case, Dawkins is correct: what we know now about the universe, quite frankly, is that it is a whole lot more mysterious and baffling than the “giant watch” of the deistic god.

Where Dawkins goes wrong is that he assumes that if the universe isn’t a “giant watch,” then that somehow proves God doesn’t exist. All that proves is that the deistic god of the Enlightenment doesn’t exist. The fact is, there are countless of high respected scientists who are Christians, who don’t buy into young earth creationism or “intelligent design,” and who fully accept evolutionary theory. They say that evolution is the way in which God is constantly creating the world.

Needless to say, Dawkins simply doesn’t get that: “I am continually astonished by those theists who, far from having their consciousness raised in the way that I propose, seem to rejoice in natural selection as ‘God’s way of achieving his creation’” (144).

That’s right, Dawkins cannot comprehend how a Christian like Francis Collins (the man who unlocked the genome) could possibly accept natural selection and evolution, and still retain a belief in God. What could possibly be wrong with a guy like Collins? Well, you just read it in Dawkins’ quote: People like Collins apparently do not possess a high enough level of consciousness! But why would Dawkins say this? Why can’t Dawkins even entertain the possibly that natural selection is God’s method to create?

The answer Dawkins gives is this: if there is no God, then natural selection is a “splendidly elegant” and “remarkably wondrous” fact; but if God exists, then natural selection is just a messy and unimpressive bungle. Such a God, according to Dawkins is “…a hypothetically lazy God who tries to get away with as little as possible in order to make a universe containing life.” Such a “lazy God is even lazier than the deist God of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: God at leisure, unoccupied, unemployed, superfluous, useless” (144).

First off, let me say that the more I read about natural selection from prominent scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller—both who are also solid Christians—the more I am convinced that the biological theory of natural selection is probably the best way to understand life on earth. At the same time, I am also more convinced that natural selection is not antithetical to Christianity. It is antithetical to “young earth creationism,” for sure—but as a Bible scholar I can confidently say that the way “young earth creationists” read passages like Genesis 1-2 is, quite frankly, an extremely unbiblical way to read the Bible.

But secondly, let’s look more closely at the complete absurdity in what Dawkins said two paragraphs above. IF it is atheistic natural selection, then it is majestic and grand, but if there is a God behind natural selection, then that “majestic and grand” mechanism that explains life on earth all of a sudden becomes cheap and unimpressive. It seems to me that a majestic and grand process is majestic and grand process no matter what.

But why would Dawkins say it’s cheap if there is a God behind it? He doesn’t directly answer this, but I think I can guess what he’d say: “If there is a God, then why couldn’t he just snap his fingers and do it perfectly all at once?” But what kind of reasoning is that? Ironically, Dawkins’ notion of God is the exact same as Ken Ham’s notion of God. Both assume that they only way God would create is by a veritable snap of the fingers.

Let me suggest that such a view imposes a simplistic cartoonish caricature on God, without seriously taking into consideration the vast complexity and diversity of existence. Dawkins, like Ham, holds the idea that the only God possible is one who magically does everything all at once, like genie: “Abracadabra!” But of course, that kind of “god” is simply not the God put forth in either the Old or New Testaments. It is, in all actuality, the red-headed step child of Enlightenment Deism. So in contrast to what Dawkins says, I do not think a God who allows freedom and creativity throughout His creation via natural selection is “lazy” or “useless.” He is Lord and Creator, whose sovereignty over such complexity, creativity, and freedom in creation is truly boundless and awe-inspiring. It is the simplistic cartoon of a genie-god that is less impressive than even the emaciated deist god of the Enlightenment…which is, by the way, the god of Ken Ham.