Double your donation impact

Donate Now

We Agree with Richard Dawkins (Sort Of)

by on
Share:

Famed UK evolutionist Richard Dawkins recently appeared in an interesting video posted to the website Big Think. In this video, the atheist and biologist argues for objective truth and the importance of both intuition and evidence. Now, we don’t say this very often, but we actually agree with some of the points that Richard Dawkins makes in this video!

He says, “Science . . . is committed to objective truth” and “science works.” He gives several examples such as building airplanes or landing probes on comets to show that science, in particular, achieves what we want it to, and this shows that science works, that is, it is objective truth.

Now, we would agree with Dawkins here—observational (or operational) science works! And it only works because we don’t live in a universe that arose by natural processes, such as the one Dawkins believes in. If the universe were a result of such random processes, why should we expect the laws of nature to work the same tomorrow as they did today? And why would they work the same here on earth as they do throughout the universe? Why should everything be orderly and predictable? This only makes sense in a biblical worldview where there is a Creator who has ordered everything and upholds the universe (Colossians 1:17) and who created the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

Of course, Dawkins fails to make a distinction between operational science (which is testable, observable, and repeatable) and historical science (which is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable). In historical science, what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence of the present in the context of history, because your beliefs about the past form the framework you use when evaluating evidence. This is something many evolutionists refuse to admit.

No Evidence for Your Hypothesis? Discard It

I thought I would comment on a few of Dawkins’ interesting statements in his video. Regarding the hypotheses scientists develop and test, he says,

If their hypothesis is disproved, they should regard that as a reason to reject the hypothesis or modify it, not a reason to just carry on doggedly sticking to the hypothesis because they are intuitively committed to it.

But does he actually practice what he preaches? Not at all. His inconsistencies are glaring!

He continues, “The only reason to believe anything is true is that there’s evidence.” It’s ironic that he urges scientists to discard their hypotheses and not allow emotional attachment to influence their decision if their ideas aren’t supported by evidence. But does he actually practice what he preaches? Not at all. His inconsistencies are glaring!

Molecules-to-man evolution is not supported by the evidence, and several lines of evidence soundly argue against the possibility of such a notion. For example,

  • The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from other life. Evolutionary origin-of-life stories break this scientific law. Despite years of trying in laboratories, scientists have never been able to create life from nonlife and there is no observational evidence that such a thing could have happened.

  • DNA is a complex language system, and language systems only come from an intelligent mind. They never arise by random chance. Evolutionists cannot satisfactorily explain the origin of DNA.

  • Evolution requires the addition of vast amounts of brand-new genetic information to turn an amoeba into a man. Yet there is no known process that adds this necessary genetic information.

Evolutionists have to ignore the evidence when it comes to all of these questions (and more!) and come up with “just-so” stories to explain what might have happened. But these stories aren’t based on operational science. They’re based on imagination and speculation.

According to Dawkins’ statements, he should no longer be an evolutionist! Why is he holding on to a bankrupt antiscientific idea? Because this is a spiritual battle, and he is in rebellion against God.1

Ignoring Objective Truth

Sadly, Dawkins argues for objective truth while ignoring the ultimate objective truth—God’s Word. It is true throughout the ages, regardless of culture, and regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. As the psalmist puts it, “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

Dawkins may accumulate vast amounts of knowledge and truth about the universe, but, unless he repents and trusts in Christ, he will never truly have wisdom because “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3), and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10).

It is our prayer that someday, before it is too late, Richard Dawkins will recognize his need of a Savior and will repent and trust in Christ.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Footnotes

  1. During an event at Oxford University in 2012, Dawkins hedged about his famed atheism. A newspaper article reported, “The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: ‘Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?’ Prof Dawkins answered that he did. An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: ‘You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.’ Prof Dawkins said that he was ‘6.9 out of seven’ sure of his beliefs.”

Ken Ham’s Daily Email

Email me with Ken’s daily email:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390