Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,949
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Richard Dawkins and agnosticism (view source)
Revision as of 01:18, December 21, 2011
, 01:18, December 21, 2011→References
Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.
Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.
== Richard Dawkins and deism ==
In 2008, the reporter Melanie Phillips wrote in the ''[[American Spectator]]'':
On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.
This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that
...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
==References==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>