On Dawkins...

I, for many years, have followed the writings of many "atheistic" or, as Dawkins terms them, "nontheist" authors who, of particular note, were very anti-theist. This is not because I am one myself, but because, as an educated Christian, it has spurred me to understand Christianity better (ironic that!), and also, to be confident in answering the objections that a person might bring to me in regards to the authenticity of Christianity.

Curiously, I found myself today looking through some quotes from Dawkins, here is one:

"People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence.
     There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word."
-- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: 1999)

Whilst eloquent, Dawkins has actually made a fundamental mistake in his logic, at the end of this blog, I hope you will understand why.

This is quite an interesting topic for me, and many other writers have spent hours going hammer and tongs over this very point - "Evolution is only a theory".

However, I thought it might be of merit to make a note... A lot of misconception has been had over what people who are anti-evolution, and those who are Evolutionists define as Evolution.

Evolution is a theory, a proven theory, one which has been proven such that it is fairly solidly defined at least in my mind set. 

However, that Evolution was the mechanism by which the diversity of the planet now exists, and that brought origin to every species and creature - this is something different - this is Darwinism.

Now, my observations are two fold -

- For the Creationists, they say "Evolution is not proven, prove it and convince me"... But by Evolution, they actually mean the latter Darwinism.

- For the Evolutionists, they say "Evolution is proven, therefore we come from apes"... But they jump from Evolution to Darwinism. Just because the prior is proven, does not make the latter.

(sorry if my generalisation doesn't ring true to you - in fact, I am glad it does not!)

For the intellectually attuned, the discussion should rightly be on the topic of "did evolution bring rise to everything we see that is living, or did something else?" This is fundamentally different. It ceases to be a question of Science, and has now gone into the realm of Historical proof. It is not a question of whether evolution can or is happening, but whether it was the device that brought about biological diversity on this planet.

At this point, we need to look to the historical evidence. Science will never prove to us the past - for that is not its role, nor should it be. So where do we look? We have fossil records, and geological digs, we also have written history dating back thousands of years to explore.

In terms of history, i could spend hours discussing fossil records, but this is not my point. The Bible makes a claim about the History of this world, that God created it, that he set it in motion, that he holds it together by his might. This means that if he did in fact create it, he also created all of the mechanisms at play on the earth (including... Evolution!). So how do we ascertain whether that was in fact true? Why not start by looking at the claims God makes about himself! Why not read about the man, Jesus, who claimed to be God, that all creation was made through and for him? And from there, determine whether what he says about himself is true.

My parting remark, when Richard Dawkins says "But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word." He is fundamentally wrong - he has jumped from a Scientific statement about Evolution, to a claim about the Historical nature of the world. So whilst Evolution could, by a stretch of Darwin's imagination, give rise to what we see - did it? Dawkins, my friend, you should stick to Science, and not Logic or Philosophy.