Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life

I have blogged before about the problems atheist have in accounting for the origin of the simplest living, self-replicating organism. The problem is that a significant amount of biological information is required to provide minimum biological functionality. More importantly, that sequence of biological information, which is identical to software code must come together all at once. It cannot be built up step by step.

Now watch this 2 minute clip from the recent movie “Expelled”. This is worth the price of the whole movie! The arch-atheist is interviewed by Ben Stein about the problem of the origin of the first replicating organism, which cannot have arisen by Darwinian means, such as mutation and selection.

Wow, that was painful. I almost felt bad for Dawkins. Here he is explaining the origin of life based on unobservable aliens that he just knows, deep down in his knower, evolved by Darwinian means. How does he know that these unobservable aliens evolved? He couldn’t have observed them evolving, and he can’t even observe them now. I guess he is willing to make that leap of faith.

But commenter ECM sent me something even funnier. Dawkins is now refusing to use the word “design” in his public lectures. Maybe, if everyone stops using that nasty, nasty word, then the whole idea that nature is the product of a Creator and Designer will just go away! Yes! If we rule out design a priori, then William Dembski and Jonathan Wells and the rest will just go home and leave the public schools to the Darwinists!

Here’s the link. Funny stuff.

To see Dawkins debate John Lennox on “The God Delusion”, click here. Answering Dawkins’ schoolyard objection “Who Made God?”. A debate on the origin of life. Atheist views on morality. Actual debates that discuss morality on atheism.

Filed under: Videos, , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses

  1. [...] As long as the intelligent designer isn’t God, Dawkins is happy.  Check out the movie clip  at Wintery Knight.  It’s well worth the [...]

  2. mcoville says:

    This was one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Darwinists attacked the comparison of Evolution and Nazism to cover up the fact that their poster boy admits he would rather admit he believes in Aliens than God.

    Dawkins is slowly slipping off the deep end and I pray that he comes back to sanity before it is too late.

  3. ECM says:

    Still more origins of life (sans Prime Mover) zaniness from the scientific materialists:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.300-second-genesis-the-search-for-shadow-life.html

  4. Cody says:

    Dawkins doesnt believe in Intelligent Design. He was giving the best possible senario for it to be true.

  5. Chris mankey says:

    “This was one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Darwinists attacked the comparison of Evolution and Nazism to cover up the fact that their poster boy admits he would rather admit he believes in Aliens than God.”

    Nope, he doesn’t think that aliens created us. Giving a hypothetical answer to a thought experiment clearly doesn’t equal belief . If I asked a Christian (Say William Dembski) if the intelligent designer could be something other than god and he gave a hypothetical answer that it could be “aliens” would you asume he believed in aliens. Of course William Dembski has done JUST THAT several times.

    • Thanks for your comment.

      The point of the post is not that Dawkins thinks aliens created life. The first point is that he has no answer to the problem of how the origin of life, on atheism. The second point is that he is open to intelligent design – but not by God. If there was a designer, then it must have been aliens not God. How does he know that? Because he ASSUMES that God does not exist – he doesn’t know it on evidential grounds. And he also assumes, WITHOUT OBSERVATIONS, that these unobservable aliens evolved. In his latest book, he says that fossils are not even needed to infer that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones.

      What would you call a person who claims to know that Darwinian evolution happened on some unobservable planet, without any observations or fossils to back up that claim?

      • Josh says:

        Hate to bring up a dead topic :)

        One, thanks for some of your postings. Although I do not agree with them, I do appreciate reading your point of view and those of some of your readers.

        Dawkins’ belief that those aliens must have evolved comes from his acceptance of evolution. He believes it is an undeniable fact and the ONLY way complex life could have arisen. Then he explains his reasoning in the rest of that chapter iirc. It’s been awhile since I have read the TGD and ofc in his newest book, he lays out the case for evolution.

        I think this “Dawkins believes in aliens” bit has been taken out of context for much to long. It has been dishonestly deployed against, such has been done by Dinesh in his recent debate with Hitchens @ Notre Dame. As Chris said, it’s just a thought experiment.

        • I’m not using it dishonestly – I realize that it is a thought experiment. That is why the subject line says MAY. I am trying to highlight his pre-suppositions and the fact that evidence is unnecessary to confirm his beliefs. He pre-supposes materialism, and that makes him as much of a fideist as any child-bride-marrying Islamic radical. It’s faith all the way down.

          Oh, and sorry to be mean, your comment was fine, I just don’t like Dawkins because he chickens out of debating Bill Craig. You are fine.

          • Josh says:

            Ah ok. I understand where you are coming from however the title and this article don’t come across as you had hoped. Well that’s my own take on the article. It could also be the constant misrepresentation of this segment in other venues.

            I think you are reading too much into this simple hypothetical question. Do you expect him to say God did it? he gave his personal opinion on the matter. If pressed, he would admit, as he does in his book, that God could exist but he sees no reason to make that assumption. It isn’t a leap of faith. A leap of faith would be a flat out rejection of God’s existence entirely which Dawkins does not do.

            I don’t think you were mean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,532,695 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,173 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,173 other followers

%d bloggers like this: