My friend Humanist Examiner Michael Stone recently wrote an article quoting biologist Richard Dawkins as saying “Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he’d known what we know today.”
Mr. Dawkins is famous for writing books such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Greatest Show on Earth about evolution and, of course, The God Delusion to evangelize his anti-theistic beliefs.
What on earth would lead Dawkins to make such an audacious remark? Intellectual dishonesty?
His hubris is apparently based on his belief that alleged “facts” of evolution obliterates any concept of a supernatural entity.
Indeed, Stone quotes Dawkins to say, “there is no positive evidence of any kind of supernatural entity.”
Mr. Dawkins is apparently willing to casually dismiss thousands, if not millions of documented accounts of paranormal experiences that include medical records, police reports and court testimony.
But Dawkins must also be deficient regarding any rudimentary knowledge of statistics.
For to make any serious attempt to explain the existence of contemporary life on Earth, we must examine the best evidence about the origins of life and the universe. Therein lies the statistical challenge for advocates of evolution theory.
The anthropic universe (also known as “the Goldilocks enigma”) is only the first enormous statistical problem to be solved by random chance.
A second, equally improbable anomaly to reconcile statistically with reality is the animation of inanimate matter through a scientific process called abiogenesis.
Mathematical calculations for the random assembly of DNA estimates that it would take more time than the earth has existed, leading to the theory called panspermia. According to the math, we shouldn’t be here.
A third most extraordinarily difficult problem to solve is the diversification of that animated matter into modern organisms (a process also called speciation).
When only time and the mechanisms of sexual reproduction are the only means available to produce variations, we must allow ourselves to believe in shape-shifting that would make the scriptwriters for science fiction movies such as Cat People and The Thing blush for their relative timidity.
These staggering improbabilities aggregate consecutively, not concurrently — meaning they compound problems caused the previous improbability because success of the next challenge is completely dependent on success of the previous.
In essence, the improbabilities are stacked on top of each other.
If the anthropic universe “just right” for life did not exist, life would not exist.
And if life itself did not exist, it could not branch out and diversify into wildly different types of living organisms.
Granted, a supernatural Creator is just as improbable as the universe He created.
However, despite Dawkins’ assertion to the contrary that no “postive evidence” exists, evidence of the supernatural does exist in NDE and ADE (after death experience/ghost) accounts of paranormal activity.
The existence of a creator God solves the improbability of the origin of life and explains the rather obvious plan of expansion that resulted in modern species.
To my chagrin, I must admit my atheist friends have at least been right all along about one thing when they derisively suggest “God did it.”
Very good. I agree completely.
If you prefer to consider life as a criminal offense, the problem is that observation only identifies the culprit responsible for the existence of life and the universe, but not his modus operandi.
For that, we must study Fibonacci’s spirals and Mandelbrot’s fractals to see the ubiquitous patterns that occur throughout nature. Why do these patterns and DNA exist?
Why does the appearance of order overwhelmingly exist in what should be chaos if no design has been employed?
Like the tabloid says, inquiring minds want to know…