Tuesday 27th February 2007

Paul Taylor of Answers In Genesis critques 'The God Delusion'

He moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock bottom at the "Moody Bible Institute", through Wheaton College (a little bit higher on the scale, but still the alma mater of Billy Graham) to Princeton in the world-beating class at the top. (p95)

Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the basis for Dawkins assessment of standards at each place? He doesn't say, but we assume that it is to do with belief in the Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among their alumni, that this is a negative for Wheaton College?

The book is full of such examples.

Straw Men

The well-known "straw man" logical fallacy occurs when the debater invents their opponent's position for them, then argues against their own invention, rather than the real position of the opponent. An example of this is seen in the mocking tone used, as he attempts to dismiss arguments based on intelligent design.

I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.

Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete misrepresentation of the intelligent design position. A biological mechanism is not labelled as irreducibly complex, because it is complicated and the labeller cannot think how it could have evolved. It is so labelled, because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to have evolved.

Conclusion

The God Delusion is far from being a reasoned argument for atheism, it is a hysterical rant. Maybe there will one day emerge a book that has a little more intellectual rigour. Dawkins' new book is weak, even by atheist standards. We note that Dawkins is now planning to send atheist material to government schools in the UK. That might be a good opportunity for British school pupils to exercise their critical thinking!

1 Edwards, B., Nothing But The Truth, (Third Edition), (Evangelical Press: 2006)

2 A longer version of this article appears on the Answers in Genesis website

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date.

About Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor is Head of Media and Publications at Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe). He read chemistry at Nottingham University and taught science for 17 years, eventually becoming a Head of Department, and gaining a Masters degree in Science Education at Cardiff University.

In January 2005, he published his first book, Just Six Days, in which he arranged contemporary creationist thinking into biblical order as a commentary of Genesis chapters 1 to 11.

Paul joined the staff of AiG-UK in August 2005. He is a regular contributor to the AiG website and is in demand as an itinerant speaker and media commentator, as well as writing numerous articles, many of which are published in various Christian magazines.

View all articles by Paul Taylor

	Showing page 2 of 2 1 2

Reader Comments

Posted by Secular Being in Earth @ 14:06 on Sep 4 2010

Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does?

A better question is "Have you ever wondered why an atheist doesn't believe what Christians, Muslims and Jews believe?"

Then answer it. Intellectually, not emotionally. Bet you can't. And therein lies the problem.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Alexander Skeith in London, UK @ 18:32 on Jun 7 2007

Contrary to what previous posting on this thread have suggested, It is not Dawkins' intention to dissuade the religious of their fast-held convictions - Indeed, his writings would seem to acknowledge such an agenda would be as futile as trying to convince an intelligent person that the planet is less than 10,000 years old...(!?)

While Dawkins' confrontational tone has clearly been interpreted as an outright attack on the psychology of religion, rather, I believe he is 'preaching to the converted' and it is his aim to 'out' fence-sitting Atheists and Agnostics who have too long been silenced by the social taboos of denying the existence of God. This I personally feel Dawkins has made a positive statement - and one much needed particularly in a present climate where the intervention of religious groups has had an increasingly detrimental effect on the political status quo within western democracies...Founded, I might add, not on blind faith, but on Reason, Truth and Enlightenment.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Alexander Skeith in London, UK @ 18:31 on Jun 7 2007

No, Dawkins' arguments are competent and robust -and certainly carry more weight than 'Photosynthesis demonstrates natural balance and is thereby conclusive evidence of a creator being'. I find accusations of narrow-mindedness directed towards an Atheist view-point as faintly preposterous...Atheism, as a rule, bases its assertions on an open-minded willingness to observe all available evidence. An Atheist mind-set is changeable - or rather it would be were not for an ever-increasing accumulation of evidence, of quantifiable fact from all academic disciplines, that represents near-conclusive proof that the Christian God is nothing more than a work of meticulously engineered fiction.

To any rational and impartial observer, it is the faithful whose minds are in state of stubborn refusal -closed to a consistent body of evidence, scientific or otherwise, that is contradictory to their beliefs.

Similarly, I take issue with any notion suggesting that atheists are somehow scared to acknowledge the would-be existence of a god - What reason would a sceptic have to be afraid if a course of unbiased and
objective reasoning that led them to accept immortality of the soul and divine forgiveness as a certainty?

I agree that Darwinist theory and intelligent design are not, on the face of it, mutually exclusive - However, while the foundations of science may yet support the vague notion of a supreme creator - What a 1000 years of iterative scientific deduction HAS established with little uncertainty, is that the CHRISTIAN God, along with the figure-heads of every other religious faith across globe, is in all likelihood non-existent.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Donald Wood in Durham @ 21:28 on Mar 27 2007

I agree with Paul Taylors main points here. Great essay. However, the thought of Dawkins being allowed to send atheist material into schools in the UK fills me with fear. Children will not be given the intellectual tools to argue against his vitriol. Our schools teach our children WHAT to think, not HOW to think. We need to be bringing our children up in the fear and admonission of the Lord. Now could be the time for Godly parents to homeschool their precious children.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Dr Jonathan Sarfati in Australia @ 01:38 on Mar 27 2007

Mr Taylor's critique of the fanatical misotheist (and eugenicist) Clinton R. Dawkins was spot on. See also an independent critique, www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900">Atheist with a mission by Philip Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries International, UK.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Laura in Winchester @ 22:46 on Mar 22 2007

Anna & Jo,I agree with you both-it seems too many people are getting hung up on little things when the big thing we need to think about is Faith.However,just a few points,both Tacitus & Pliny wrote about Jesus,as well as Josephus.Secondly,whether or not we believe in evolution does not matter-when we die God is not going to ask us how we think the world came into existence- & I believe the account of creation in Genesis corresponds with the accepted order of evolution.The important question is not HOW,but WHO.Thirdly,we need to remember that Dawkins has an agenda.Here is a man who wants everyone to be an atheist-an evangelical/fanatical if ever I heard of one!We cannot expect that he will show any evidence of an open mind,nor that he will allow for any alternative point of view.He does not wish to believe in God/Jesus/creation so will not consider any evidence of any kind.Just as many super-evangelical Christians would not write books allowing for anything other than Christian beliefs.A far better,far more balanced point of view comes from those scholars who are open to being proved wrong.Take Lee Strobel,for instance.His book 'The Case for Christ' is a journalist's account of his own journey to believing in Jesus Christ.Strobel started out on his journey hoping to disprove Christ & yet by being open minded,he found that there was far more evidence to prove than to disprove.Fourthly,I have to disagree on one point with Anna-I believe that science can actually support my faith.For example,photosynthesis.The animal kingdom breathes out carbon dioxide & breathes in oxygen.Inhaling too much carbon dioxide would be lethal for the red blood cells-the animal kingdom would die.But,the plant kingdom does the exact opposite,respiring oxygen & taking in carbon dioxide.Perfect balance that,IMHO,could never have happened by 'accident'-in this I see the case for the Creator.

[reply] [report abuse]

Reply by Anna in Middlesbrough @ 11:23 on Mar 23 2007

Agreed, it was an oversight when I said science belittles, because I meant many people in science can try to belittle, wheras, science proves that we have a design, and thus a designer.

[report abuse]

Posted by Anna in Middlesbrough @ 10:37 on Mar 22 2007

Jo, I really think that you have hit the nail on the head, too many people manage to get caught up in facts and scientific proof and manage to ignore or disregard what is actually important. There are more historical documents to prove, or suggest the existence of Jesus than there are Caesar, but people do not have a problem with Caesar existing because he never called us to assess our lives and morals and our very existence. I have a belief that people who spend a very long time and lots of big words to prove that God does not exist are generally scared, have very closed minds or are bitter about something that has happened in their life that they cannot explain, i.e "if there is a god why did my mum die" etc.
The real point is, if you have a relationship with your God, if you look out over a mountain top (cliched I know) nontheless, if you do that and think, look how small I am, someone must be behind this, then it is natural to think, there must be more, there must be a God. "Over the past 50 years scientists have been discovering more and more evidence that our universe was carefully and purposefully designed for the benefit of humanity. Such evidence of design points to a Creator - one who transcends space, time, matter, and energy."
Even Darwin did not deny the evidence of design; instead, he hoped to show that living things only appeared designed, while really being the result of chance and natural selection. What makes this enquiry so compelling today, is that design is no longer found only in living things but also in the physical universe itself. In cosmology, the so-called anthropic principle tells us that the universe is “intentionally gifted by God” and is finely tuned to support life.
When we bring science into equation, it does soemwhat belittle the amazing relationship that people share with God. For me, for instance, the big bang theory is a theory nothing more, but my faith and my god are real and there is nothing theoretical about them.

[reply] [report abuse]

Reply by Jo in Cambridge @ 20:22 on Mar 22 2007

'Bang on' Anna. However one small point; Science doesn't belittle our amzing relationship with God or diminish our faith; rather, science proves that our creator is awesome.

[report abuse]

Posted by Jo in cambridge @ 06:47 on Mar 20 2007

With respect, I think you're all missing the point and into the bargain making the Bible more important than faith. the Bible was written by people. Like us. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit but nonetheless, they were people. They were limited in their scientific knowledge and were people trying with huge faith and integrity to make sense of their world and this relationship with their God. The Bible is not a scientific document. It really doesn't matter whether the earth is billions of years old, our faith doesn't rest on these matters. What counts is that we use our minds and our hearts together to bring the good news of God's determination to restore us in relationship with God through Jesus. We do a disservice to the story with which we have been entrusted when we ignore scientific evidence for the bringing into being of the universe. How God chose to do it has nothing to do with us and everything to do with God's awesome creativity.

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Neil in Cheltenham @ 18:42 on Mar 19 2007

I have just read the full version of the article, which appears on the website, and that is much more detailed. Also, it is much better structured, with links to many other sites backing up his positions; particularly interesting is the article from a newspaper about the 'intellectual laziness' dawkins displays in his previous tv programme. Definitely worth reading...

[reply] [report abuse]

Posted by Kevin in Tonbridge @ 09:06 on Mar 16 2007

On the subject of the bible contradicting itself, the best means of analysis is always to read and study it first hand. I would suggest that rather than relying on large tranches of opinion, found through "googling" search strings, we should always return to the source document to form our own opinions rather than relying on others.

All of these comments are based on the second hand opinions of others , both Dawkins, and the author of the article. Rather than continually ruck over these articles and books, would it not be better for people to search out the truth for themselves? This would involve giving both aetheism and the existence of God equal opportunities to be proven or disproven.

In any case to believe there is no God requires at least the same amount of faith as is requred to believe God exists.

[reply] [report abuse]

View more reader comments on this article

The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.