Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Dr. Richard Dawkins accepts Evolution by FAITH!

By Josh Williamson

Richard Dawkins

The atheists and evolutionists will often at times argue that creationists accept the belief in God, and Creation by faith alone. As a result of this line of thinking, it has led many atheists to believe that they are 'bright' and the rest are 'dim' because they are not built upon the realm of faith.

But is that the truth? Or do atheists have a double standard and accept their own view points solely on faith?

Dr. Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, who is championed among many of the atheists camps as being a leader in the charge against theism, yet Dr. Dawkins admitted in an interview, that he does not have any evidence for evolution.

Below is the question and answer:

Question: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

Answer: I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.[1]

Why the double standards? One cannot help but wonder if this is hypocrisy from the atheist camp, or is it admittance that their belief in evolution is nothing more than a faith based belief system?

Since it is clear that, at least deep down, Dawkins knows that he accepts evolution by faith, why this pretence among atheists that it is scientific.

If Dr. Dawkins can admit that there is no proof for Darwinian evolution, why then don't the other atheists come out of the closet and admit it also? Why do they keep the act going?

From a Christian perspective, I believe that they do not want to admit it, because, the moment they do they will have to acknowledge that there could be a God, and once that is acknowledged they will realise that they are accountable to Him. The natural man does not want to acknowledge their Creator due to the fact that they love their sin, and they hate God. This is nothing more than an atheist deliberately overlooking (2 Peter 3:5) the facts, and choosing to ignore the Creator who made them and currently sustains their life.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." – Romans 1:19-22 (ESV)

  1. [1] (1 March 2005)


  1. There is no double standard in Dawkins case, he says that he believes in Darwinian natural selection because he has sufficient proof for it--natural selection is easily observable in fruit flea populations in labs, for example. Believing in a deity is not based on evidence, there are no observations or proofs that a deity exists.

  2. The problem is he is talking about Darwinian evolution creating the appearance of 'design' as something he believes without proof.

    He is not talking about not believing in natural selection. If he hadn't seen proof for natural selection then he wouldn't be a very good scientist would he?

  3. Lol - the above is not me btw.

    PS - I'll get to this in full when I have time.

    Nonetheless, isn't it now hypocritical of you to criticise belief in something of which you have no evidence?

    In any event, as you may be aware, the scientific mind does not conclude in absolute truths. Thus, although there is significant evidence (I know you will argue about this) he cannot be certain, after all, knowledge is imperfect because it is generally subject to an infinite egress of further questions. Thus, he believes in evolution because of the high probability of it being correct. On this note, your headline is somewhat misleading.

    But apply the scientific method to your own beliefs.

    1. Faith requires statements of absolutes - which a scientist will not accept.

    2. Are the faithful sufficiently humble to admit that they may be wrong - as a scientist does?

    On the other hand, Dawkins is well-known for making faux pais. Thats what happens when you send a scientist to do a lawyers job ;).

  4. ...yet Dr. Dawkins admitted in an interview, that he does not have any evidence for evolution.

    Below is the question and answer:

    Question: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

    The question asked for something he accepts without being about to prove. What definition is applied here? The idea of legal "prove"? It is possible to have evidence for something without being able to prove it conclusively (OJ Simpson, anyone? Lol!).
    No one can conclusively prove that god/s exist - if they could, this argument would be futile. You may claim to have some evidence that points to the existence of god, but that does not allow you to claim that you can "prove it".
    Dawkins did not "admit to having no evidence", he merely admitted that he cannot conclusively prove it occurred this way.

    I should have thought you would applaud him for being open-minded enough to consider another possibility?


Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.