Remarks on Comments
by Dr Richard Dawkins in a BBC Interview.
The doctor’s comments on the evolution of a feather
“--- there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather; if you can’t think of one that’s your problem not natural selection’s-mmm- well I suppose that is a matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.”
Remarks on the comments and the theory
I am not a biologist and neither am I aware of all the evolutionary arguments that are put forward to support Charles Darwin’s theory as to the origin of species. However, I do know that it is based primarily on what is called natural selection involving the survival of the fittest. The theory (and this is what Dr. Dawkins himself calls it) is based on the survival and accumulative effect of millions of advantageous mutations. Most mutations are said by the doctor to be deleterious (that is harmful or destructive) which brings at least 50% of all mutations within this category.
Questions
1)
How did the spinning equipment possessed by a spider evolve?
The spider has a very complicated spinning arrangement in its posterior region which enables it to spin a web by which it traps its prey enabling it to live. The claim that this arrangement was produced by the process spoken about above raises questions that require an answer. What triggered off the series of advantages that led to this sophisticated spinning machine and what advantageous mutations could possibly have occurred along the way during the process? The doctor thinks that the latter is my problem; I think that it is actually his.
The limited understanding that I have of Darwinism is that if a mutation is not advantageous it will be rigorously rejected and set aside. Now according to the theory, and the doctor, the first mutation, which is purely accidental must also be advantageous and the next (presumably of millions) will not only be accidental and advantageous but also be additive to a process whose final destination, if indeed it has one, is as yet unknown.
Now the spider meantime has to eat to live and the prospect of waiting millions of years for breakfast just doesn’t appeal to it. So, it must have found its food in some other way. How then could each mutation out of millions be advantageous along the way so as to produce such sophisticated spinning gear if the destination of the process was unknown (as the doctor thinks) at the outset? And even if the destination was known at the outset it is most unlikely that the need, supposing an evolving world, would remain the same after millions of years.
Many years ago I came across a little book entitled, “Did Man Just Happen” by a Doctor Criswell that had something to say on this question and I would recommend it to the reader if he can find a copy. (Try the web) At the conclusion of my reading I well remember my heart rising in worship to God as a creator God. This was written, if I remember correctly, for young people and we should not forget that they face these questions every day in school, college, university and in the media. We must not leave them, while avoiding crankish religious argument from some quarters, in the middle of the pond without a paddle.
In his book entitled, “The Blind Watchmaker” Dr. Dawkins produces mathematical arguments for his conclusions when he considers his question:-
2)
How did something like an eye evolve?
He reasons that half an eye is better than none and that 5% sight likewise is better than none at all. True, but we have still to get to half an eye and where along the line does the process first become advantageous? The doctor says that it is at the first mutation.
At this point the doctor hesitates and says, “Well, I suppose that is a matter of faith on my part” and then adds as the basis of his faith, “-since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.”
I know that the doctor considers such reasoning as mine to be pathetic but personally, I find his own reasoning unconvincing.
Doctor Dawkins’ difficulty
Dr. Dawkins is obviously a very clever and knowledgeable man in many fields and it may be difficult for the average person to successfully win the argument. But this does not mean that he is correct and it is to be noted that he is not without his own problems; at least this was the case at the time of his writing “The Blind Watchmaker.”
I refer to his difficulty over the development
of Nautilus embryos (squid like creatures that live in shells) and what he
would call their apparent inability to evolve a lens for their eye. He writes
about Michael Land, the foremost authority on invertebrate eyes, being worried
and adds, “so am
If the necessary mutations cannot arise then he has need to be worried. It seems to me that this would put the whole theory in jeopardy.
Comments on Christians putting forward
arguments against evolution which are derived from natural phenomena.
If such arguments are used it should be borne in mind that what seems to be valid today might be shown, in the light of new discoveries, to be invalid tomorrow; the scientists too having to change their minds. Many thoughts put forward by Christians may be perfectly valid and helpful but sometimes care should be taken not to over dogmatise about things of which we are really not certain. As another has said about the scriptures, “This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to.” J.N.Darby- Synopsis. At the end of the day we do believe that what God has done in creation will be demonstrated to be in accord with what he has written in his word.
One thing is certain, the scriptures say that Adam was the first man. If this was not the case then the teaching of Christianity collapses. Here undoubtedly we have a conflict between the majority view of the scientific world and Christianity. Conflict with the scientific world is nothing new although some might consider the arguments from it to be articulated with a little more sophistication these days.
The conclusion reached by such scientists seems to be that there is no God and they work hard attempting to prove it. Scripture, as a friend of mine pointed out, on the other hand says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1: 22.
The veracity and coherence of the word of God
The Christian believer however finds that having started out on the basis of faith, that scripture, when considered in context, is both coherent and powerful. The writer believes that what is called, “a pre-millennial dispensational” viewpoint of the scriptures helps to put them into overall context demonstrating their veracity and coherence.
GWD March. 2006
Return to Bible Papers Home Page
Back to Idols Forward to Something for Him
The reader is also referred to the paper on,"The Inspiration of Scripture"