His very influential book The Blind Watchmaker was first published by Longman in l986. Not long after its publication it was supported and given prominence by a BBC television program.  In 1988 it was republished by Penguin. It has also been translated into many languages and has had considerable influence world wide. 

He took its title from the Rev. William Paley's 19th Century writing.   William Paley argued that just as a watch does not come into existence by accidental processes but needs a watchmaker, so the complex mechanisms of the natural world could not have come into existence by chance but need a Maker namely God.

The purpose of Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker is to attempt to show that the amazing complexities of life were brought into existence by the process of 'natural selection' which can be understood in purely materialistic terms.   There is no need for belief in God. 

Natural selection has no mind or sight of its own.   It is therefore 'blind'.   Nevertheless he claims to believe it is the controlling process which has produced the incredible complexity of life we see around us today.

Dawkins several times denies that evolution is a random or chance process. However the way he explains his theory does show that chance or random processes do play a very vital role in the whole process.

It was Charles Darwin who was one of the first to recognise this process which is popularly called evolution. 

Dawkins argues his case with considerable wit and creative thinking and rightly demolishes many arguments of opponents of Darwin.   Many of his points are penetrating. 

His book has received great praise from academics and journalists alike.    Even churchmen, no doubt anxious to demonstrate their secular credentials in our materialistic age, have lavished praise upon the book. 

I fear though, that those who have heaped adulation on the book have been so dazzled by his brilliant style that they have been unable to recognise its serious flaws. (For my assessment of the so-called Intelligent Design movement, click here.)

I would not presume to argue with him as a zoologist or biologist. I am not competent to get into all the scientific details. However I can easily follow Dawkins' actual arguments. At their most crucial points they are not scientific and they are not difficult to comprehend. If one can get behind his marvellous and creative rhetoric and listen to the actual case he is making, one will see that it is flawed at its most decisive points. 

Interestingly he says that until Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 "it was not possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (pp. 5-6).   Although philosophers may have said that no explanation was needed for the complexity of nature, Dawkins believes that in their 'heart of hearts' they knew such an explanation was needed.   In fact scattered through his first chapter entitled 'Explaining the Very Improbable' he uses similar arguments against classical atheism that I used in my booklet The Delusion of Unbelief in a Scientific Age.(published by Handsel Press in 1987). 

However Dawkins claims to believe that Darwin saved the day for the atheist because Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides the key to understanding the mystery of life without God. 
(By the way, what about the mystery of the existence of our exquisitely finely tuned universe and all the finely tuned forces that are the constituents of atoms that are the basis of all physical existence and what about their components? None of them are there by 'logical necessity' so why do they exist at all?)

But to return to the matter in hand.
I don't believe Darwin saved the day for the atheists like Dawkins.   In fact I suspect that like the pre- Darwinian atheist philosophers, Dawkins too, in his 'heart of hearts' he does not believe Darwin does either.

Dawkins frequently refers to the famous astronomer and writer Fred Hoyle who, although not a believer in the God of the Bible, rejects Darwinism and evolution as expounded by biologists such as Dawkins. 

Hoyle proposes some extra-terrestrial intelligence as the source of life on earth. 

Dawkins accuses Fred Hoyle of misunderstanding Darwinism.   But in fact it is Dawkins who misunderstands Fred Hoyle. 

Fred Hoyle is famous for his junkyard illustration.   What are the chances of a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard assembling a Jumbo Jet from its pieces scattered about the Junkyard?   Of course there is no chance that it would ever happen. 

Fred Hoyle says that life is so so complex that to say it came into existence by chance processes is like saying that the whirlwind assembled the Jumbo Jet. 

Now Dawkins claims that Fred Hoyle has missed the point.   Dawkins says that evolution of such wonderful mechanisms as the 'eye' do not need such a huge 'single step' increase in complexity.   Dawkins says that the increase in complexity comes gradually over millions of years.   Natural selection is a cumulative process, which weeds out unhelpful changes in a species and preserves those changes most able to help the species to adapt, compete and survive.   This indeed is the essence of much of Dawkins' book.   Successive increases in complexity are very small but given millions of generations they explain life as it is today. 

But has Fred Hoyle really missed the point?
In Fred Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe (published by Michael Joseph 1n 1983) pp.18-19, he refers to his junkyard illustration not in relation to the formation of an eye but the formation what he believes are the enzymes necessary for life before cumulative selection can start. 

Some critics of Hoyle say that he is exaggerating what is needed for the formation of life. Biologists can argue about this and I am not competent to judge between them. 

However what is clear is that Hoyle definitely is not talking about the formation of the eye as Dawkins alleges. The junkyard illustration comes at the end of a chapter in which he is discussing the chances of producing the proteins needed by our cells. He tells us that the chances of producing just one protein (which isn't even alive or capable of self-replication) is like a blind-folded man solving a rubic cube by accident. He tells us that such a man would need 100 times the age of the universe to accidentally solve the rubic cube.

Even the simple bacterium is nothing less than a highly complex computer program (the DNA) connected to a highly complex chemical factory (the cytoplasm) with an amazing translation and communication system (the RNA). 

Even if such a complex mechanism as a bacterium was not needed at first, and even if Hoyle has exagerated the complexity necessary for early proteins, Dawkins admits that the formation of a molecule capable of starting the cumulative selection process needed a huge single-step increase in complexity. 

This is the subject of his chapter 6 'Origins & Miracles'.   He says "we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step (his emphasis) chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself" (p. 140). 

Earlier in the book (p. 91) Dawkins says: 
 "if a complex organ of life is ever found that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications . . . I shall cease to believe in Darwinism".

(The logic is the same whether we are discussing the orgin of an actual 'organ' or whether we are discussing the origin of any highly complex biological entity.) 

Two chapters later he acknowledges that the cumulative selection is both very complex and could not have come into existence by cumulative selection.  (It is obvious that you can't use 'cumulative selection' to explain the start of 'cumulative selection'.)  So if he is consistent to the logic referred to two paragraphs above he should give up Darwinism.

To clarify matters we ask what level of complexity does Dawkins believe is necessary for cumulative selection to get started? Like Fred Hoyle he too has an illustration. It is not the Jumbo Jet (in the junkyard) but a Xerox copying machine. 

He says It can copy things but it can't spring into existence all by itself! What is needed in this 'copying machine'? Dawkins tells us it is a 'machine tool' that needs to be guided by RNA. (RNA is a code that is made by the bacterium.) However there is no bacterium at this stage because life has not yet started.  Both the RNA and the machine tool have to come into being by the 'single step' that Dawkins says is necessary for this origin of cumulative selection. 

Of course the example of the Xerox machine or a watch are only illustrations. Dawkins knows that a Xerox machine cannot come into existence by itself in a 'single step' move. However the he likens the problem of the genesis of life to just that.

So what actually is required to arise spontaneously (not gradually)? He tells us that the “spontaneous arising of DNA or RNA” is  what he is trying to explain. (page 146). He calls this thing that needs to arise in a single step 'life' (page 139). Now what does he mean by ‘life’? In a moment we will see the answer he gives.

Note here I am not engaging with other atheist theories on the origin of life. (Not that I think they can possibly be successful). I am rather looking at the arguments that Dawkins uses.

However it is worth noting that about ten years after Dawkins wrote the Blind Watchmaker the Encyclopaedia Britannica said of the origin of life:

A critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is  the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus supporting the operation of the code the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs,  and so on are themselves each produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.

So then how does he explain the formation of the cumulative selection, or putting it another way how does he explain how the something comparable to a Xerox machine or a watch came into existence all by themselves?

He uses a simple argument.   Although the chances are small, there are so many planets in the universe (perhaps 10^20 he says) it was likely to happen somewhere and so it did on planet earth! 

But is this a valid argument?   If Dawkins is right then there is possibly a working machine whose  complexity and  information content could reasonably be illustrated by the examples of a watch or Xerox machine on another planet somewhere in the universe.   Although it is very very unlikely that the forces of nature could have put together these things by accident there are so many billions of planets that it may indeed have happened on one of them.   Does the reader believe it possible?   No, and you can be sure Dawkins doesn't either. 

Some may respond by saying the Xerox machine is just his illustration. Okay, lets put it another way.

Supposing now we were to discover writing conveying information, would anyone believe that such a phenomenon would ever some into existence by chance even if there were an infinite number of planets? 

Governments are pouring big sums of money into the search for extra-terrestiral intelligent life. What astronomers are looking for is evidence of language coming from distant planets. Regular beeps will be insufficient to prove that intelligent life is the source. Such beeps could be the result of the physical properties of stella objects.

However if they detect an actual language conveying useful instructions or information about universal mathematical truths such as: 'After 1 and 2 the number 11 is the fourth prime number' (Only about 60 letters when put into English) -  they will have found intelligence. (Words and sentences in a book are not deducible from the chemistry of the ink and paper, because they have their origin in someone's mind). 

They will not conclude that it is just a mindless coincidence and that the possible existence of 10^20 planets explains it without reference to any intelligent source.

Similarly if archaeologists discover meaningful and useful writing on an ancient stone they will not say: Oh well there are billions of stones on earth, we don't need to posit intelligence as its source.

Why do I use this example of useful language? Because Dawkins tells us that RNA or DNA (forms of useful language) had to arise 'spontaneously' (page 146). 

Earlier n the book he tells us that 'life' is all about information in words and language.   For example on p.112 he writes:

 "What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, nor a 'spark of life'.   It is information, words, instructions . . .   Think of a billion discrete digital characters . . .   If you want to understand life, think about information technology." 

(Remember later in his book (page 139) he starts his explanation of how 'life' got started spontaneously.)

Lets though be generous to Dawkins and assume that he is describing something much more simple than his quote above implies.

However, whatever we concede, the analogy of writing does adequately describe his problem.

Speaking of the information content of the simplest cell of life (in the DNA & RNA) the mathematician Douglas R. Hofstadter in his brilliant book Godel, Escher,  Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid (published by Penguin in 1979) says (p.54): 

 "A natural and fundamental question to ask, on learning of these incredibly, intricately interlocking pieces of software and hardware is:  'How did they ever get started in the first place?' . . . from simple molecules to entire cells is almost beyond one's power to imagine.   There are various theories on the origin of life.   They all run aground on this most central of central questions:  'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for it translation originate?'" 

We shall come back to the information content of life later on, when we will note that the physical world (not just the living biological world) is also packed with information at its fundamental levels.   Judging by his comments on Physics in the very first page of his book this most important point seems to have passed Dawkins by.

But let us return to Dawkins' main point in his chapter on Origins.   Remember he estimates that there may be 10^20   (100 billion billion) planets in the universe and that therefore as long as the odds are not more than 10^20 to 1 against the formation of the simplest form of life in a single step move then his theory is O.K.   He says that these odds are probably "ample to accommodate the spontaneous arising of DNA or RNA”. 

Significantly Dawkins does not even attempt to explain why he thinks 10^20 to 1 is sufficient odds.   It is just an assertion he makes.

So it is not surprising to read Dawkins' confession on page 158:

 "Does it sound to you as though it would need a miracle to make randomly jostling atoms join together into a self replicating molecule?   Well, at times it does to me too."

Earlier in the chapter he anticipates this difficulty by saying that to say that God created life would not help because then we are left with the question of the origin of God.  Later on I will show the fallacy behind this point.

But perhaps Dawkins will say that the first RNA or DNA to appear were simpler than the ones we know of today.   Let us consider the E. Coli cell.   It could be written thus: CCGTCAGGATT . ........ on and on and on for approximately the length of the whole Bible. 

This of course cannot be just a jumble of 'letters'.   They have to be in precise sequence to instruct the cell to manufacture the particular proteins needed.   (To write out the code for a cell in a human being would require about 500 Bibles for each cell). 

Now let us for the sake of argument assume that the most primitive RNA or DNA at the beginning of life needed only the length of the New Testament - no, let us be really generous to Dawkins and assume only a few chapters length would be enough.   Let us reduce it even further and say we only need a few sentences – totalling 50 letters (say) - giving useful information. 

How long would we expect a monkey to go on typing before he accidentally typed out the right sequence to tell us - not just anything, but something we needed to know?   If he typed one letter per second it would still be a time many times greater than the age of the universe. 

Dawkins goes to great lengths to describe an experiment on his own computer.   What are the chances of random processes in the computer accidentally typing out Dawkins' chosen sentence: 'Me thinks it is a weasel'.   If the computer is given this sentence as a long term goal and if it is allowed to select from each random attempt the most favourable jumble of letters and build upon that, then Dawkins tells us that it would take a mere 40 attempts (or 'generations') to produce something approaching the desired sentence.

(Incidentally 'Me thinks it is a weasel.' is not only very short, it conveys next to no useful information or instruction - unlike even primitive DNA or RNA.)

But, apart from my above comment in parenthesis, we have reached a crucial point.   Dawkins acknowledges at this point in his discussion that natural selection does not have any long-term goal.   It is 'blind'. 

At this point in the book I thought Dawkins was going to show that 'Me thinks it is a weasel' could be reached even without a goal written into the program.   But no!   He drops the aim of the computer reaching the sentence and changes it for computer drawings (p.50). 

So he turns away from language (however short and simple) and shows how computer drawings can change to resemble insects.   But this is to abandon the very very important point that the supposed development of life is all about the development of language and information. 

(Incidentally I do not see why Dawkins is so pleasantly surprised that his computer program produces insect-like pictures.   Given his method of selection it is not surprising at all especially as the changes are based on tree like-branching).

Even if we grant that a self replicating molecule of this simplicity could exist, so that the process of cumulative selection could begin, then the progress evolution would have to make to reach, oak trees, elephants, whales and human being would be that much greater.

But for the sake of argument, let us grant that a self replicating RNA or DNA molecule, did come into existence by chance processes in the single step move that Dawkins acknowledges was necessary.

It is from this basic constituent of 'life' (as we have seen this is the word Dawkins' uses on page 139) that the necessary process of evolution is supposed to have started.   How does this basic form of life (with no leaves, roots, bones, eyes, ears, feathers, fur, teeth, claws, lungs, heart, brain etc. etc.) change into the amazing variety of plant, animal and human life all around us today. 

Dawkins believes that chance processes bring mutations (changes) that cause the variety of life to evolve from the first cell of life.   The chance processes are random changes in the DNA code which can occur when a 'parent' brings forth offspring. 

Occasionally copying errors occur and so a random change occurs in the following generation's DNA code.   These infrequent changes usually produce harmful or lethal effects in the species but occasionally produce beneficial changes for the next generation.

Before we go on I give a brief summary of the theory behind mutations. I owe this to Denis Alexander.
‘Point Mutations’ involve the change of a single ‘base’ (the letter in the ‘genetic alphabet’). Other mutations may happen because of a loss or gain of a whole sequences of DNA. If such a gain happened it would be DNA that had  been added inappropriately from some other chromosomes in the same cell.  Such events occur quite often during the process of cell division. The copying process is extremely accurate, but the enormous rate at which cell division occurs in some tissues leads to errors in replication.
Many of these are rectified by the DNA repair enzymes, which are constantly on the look out for mistakes. However some mutations may still be passed on to daughter cells.

(However it is  extremely unlikely that a copying error randomly made by a typist will improve a manuscript - but Dawkins assures us that this does happen from time to time with the DNA and so we must believe him). 

Beneficial changes are obviously more fit to survive and so they do and pass on their new benefits to succeeding generations. . . and so the process of evolution of species continues on.   He rightly rules out the possibility of large-scale changes taking place in one single step move.

It is on this point that he so strongly disagrees with his fellow world famous evolutionary biologist: Stephen Jay Gould. Gould like Dawkins does not want God in the picture.

However Gould points out that the fossil record shows relatively sudden appearances of well developed life. Gould believes that this shows that large scale changes did take very quickly indeed - relatively speaking. 

Dawkins accepts that the fossil record does seem to show this. However he can't accept it. He says that it is giving ground to the creationists (Page 230). 
(By the way is the argument that Gould is  helping the creationists a scientific argument or an argument of guilt by association?!)

This 'Dawkins-Gould' argument is not part of my main thesis so I only mention it in passing. The reader can find  Dawkins criticism of Gould in Chapter 9.

Fundamental to his book is that small changes that accumulate over many generations can explain the incredible complexity we see in life today. 

How many generations?   He reckons that the age of the planet earth will allow us 100 million (10^8) generations.   Is this enough?   Let us consider one example - the human brain.
Prof. Ambrose (Emeritus Professor of Biology in London University) in his book 'The Nature and Origin of the Biological World' page 152 , (published by Ellis Horwood 1982) describing the complexity of the brain says that it is like 500 million telephone exchanges all connected properly.   The connections possible are 10^1,300,000,000,000.  (To write this number out in the normal form l,000,000 . . . etc. would take about one hundred thousand years to do.)

Perhaps Dawkins would not agree with Professor Ambrose's description of the brain?   But he does agree.   He writes on the first page of the preface 

 "The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones.   Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurones."

Now to suggest as Dawkins does that only 100 million generations of small changes could produce such complexity is absurd. And of course the brain is only one amongst countless wonders of the living world.   Dawkins himself gives us a description of the wonders of the eye (p.16-17), and the sonar skills of the bat (Chapter 2). 

Does he really believe 10^8 generations are enough to explain all this?

Elsewhere in his book he tells us that the DNA that controls the Willow tree has as much information as thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.   His sentence 'Me thinks it is a weasel' is a very very feeble and  inadequate starting point for life even given 100 million generations, especially, as he acknowledges, natural selection is not aiming at producing anything.   It is a blind process that merely preserves random improvements. Can such wonderful order really have arisen without an Intelligent Mind bringing it to being? 

Now I want to go on by commenting about origin of the order we see everywhere around us. The science of 'order' is not simple. There are many different kinds of 'order'. For example the complexity of a Jumbo Jet is very different from the order of such letters we might find such as ABC  ABC ABC - on and on and on. If we found such 'writing' (regular but conveying no useful instruction or information)  we would still assume that it had not come into existence by chance. It must have produced by a simple mathematical instruction or physical process - but not necessarily an intelligent mind. Nevertheless we would still be forced to ask the question as to why physical things have certain properties (and not others) which produce this order, or alternatively who wrote the mathematical algorithm.

It is only a superficial conclusion that 'mind' is not needed. When we press the question - but 'Why this and not that?' we can't avoid mind as the ultimate origin of all things. More of this below.

However, as noted earlier in this article, if we discovered writing not having a regular pattern (like ABC ABC ABC etc etc), but instead conveying useful instructions, (like a language or code) that would be different. We would immediately assume intelligent mind was its ultimate origin.

These issues relating to  very different kinds or complexity and order are explored very fully in theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies's book: The Fifth Miracle. He relates his study to the issues of life and biology - issues that  we have been discussing in this review of The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paul Davies claims no particular religious commitment I certainly recommend his book for careful study.

The underlying assumption of all modern science (an assumption I  accept) is that  physical existence has  a rational structure open to investigation by science. Certain effects have certain causes because of the way nature is.
Experiment is necessary to find these causes because nature did not have to be as it is by logical necessity but its 'order' was chosen for it by its Creator. If we want to discover the order of nature we must go and take a look,  i.e. do experiments. A good case, worth considering, has been made by several scientists (e.g. Professor Peter Hodgson - Nuclear Physics, Oxford University) that cultures which did not have a belief in free creation by a single Creator were not able to let experimental science get off the ground.

I wonder if this is what Einstein meant when he said: Science without religion is lame.

However as the arch sceptical philosopher David Hume showed we cannot assume that effects have causes unless we believe in 'laws of nature'. He argued that we cannot, by observation, conclude that there are such laws and therefore we cannot assume that because event A has previously always followed event B that it will continue to do so  tomorrow.

Although Hume's argument is difficult to counter, almost all of us do assume that such 'laws' exist. Many (such as Isaac Newton) argued that such an assumption is based on the religious belief that there is one Law Giver.

The 'laws of nature' or rather the rational structure of nature depends on Something beyond mere physical existence. This is what the ancient Greek philosophers realised when they noted that nature has structure and concluded that it must be infused with a non physical element: 'mind' or 'nous'.

Einstein again: The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible'.

It was this obvious rational comprehensible structure that gave him (in his later life) a case against those who thought physical existence alone could explain everything.

Speaking of the `miracle' that the universe is ordered and therefore comprehensible he says in a letter to Maurice Solvine:
"And here is the weak point of positivists and professional atheists, who feel happy because they think they have pre-empted not only the world of the divine but also of the miraculous. Curiously we have to be resigned to the miracle without any legitimate way of getting any further. I have to add the last point explicitly, lest you think that weakened by age I have fallen into the hands of Priests."

A more modern author, who with Dawkins, is a founder of  'sociobiology' is Edward Wilson. He, like Dawkins, believes that the whole of reality can be explained by reductionist science. In a short passage in his prize winning book Consilience he wonders why the  universe is ordered. He writes of the "fortunate comprehensibility of the universe", and says of the world that it is  "surprisingly well ordered". (Page 50). He gives no explanation for this 'fortunate comprehensiblity of the universe'. Indeed he cannot.

My final main point is rather different - though related to the above in a profound way.

Let us just suppose the impossible that the origin and development of life has a purely physical explanation. But that leaves us with the question: What actually is physical matter? It was one of the many questions which Bertrand Russell (atheist/agnostic) philosopher acknowledged can have no answer in science. (See his  Introduction to 'History of Western Philosophy'.)  But why cannot it have an answer? If we ask 'What is everything made of?' we are faced with various basic alternatives. 1. If we keep dividing up matter into ever smaller and smaller constituents and this process goes on forever we will have progressed in knowledge but not answered the question. 2. Alternatively if we reach a point where we know there is no further to go in the analysis of physical matter we will have reached a particle that is made of nothing else. But something that has no constituent is not really 'matter' at all. Leibniz (Whom Bertrand Russell regarded as one of the greatest minds of all time) realised this. He said that if any particle that has finite size cannot be fundamental because it will be capable of being split further. He concluded that a real fundamental particle (if such a thing exists) must be infinitely small. However since the essence of matter is that it occupies space, such a 'particle' could not be matter. He therefore called it a 'soul'. This resonates with the discovery of what Paul Davies calls the 'ghostly' world of quantum physics.
But supposing matter  is not particles but a wave or force. Then we are left with the question: 'A wave or force in what medium?'
I believe that Bertrand Russell was right. "What is matter?" (or matter/energy)  is a question that lies beyond the bounds of natural science.
So if we can't explain either the origin or essence of matter, why do we think we have solved the mystery of life when we don't even know what the matter is from which is it is, at least, partly composed?
So what is matter? It is a mystery. However we know something.
In one of his non-religious books on quantum theory theoretical physicist Professor Sir John Polkinghorne FRS tells us that when we get down to the basics of matter we find 'intelligibility' rather than objectivity. (Quantum Theory - A Very Short Introduction, page 86).
Paul Davies in ‘The New Scientist’ recently wrote: Have we got it wrong? Perhaps information is a primary concept in the universe.

This of course brings us back to life and DNA etc. For as Dawkins tells us that is a form of language.

I am reminded of what guided Einstein.

"We are in the position, of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects." (Quoted by David Bodanis in his book: E=mc^2) (Emphasis added).

So how is mind known? I can only know your mind by hearing you speak or communicate in words. Words express minds. By examining your brain I could never discover your thoughts - I could never discover your mind. However if I have a personal relationship with you, listening to what  you say, I can learn something of your mind.
So how do we find the Mind of God and how is it expressed?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

If we close our hearts and minds to this Word then we closed our mind to Ulitmate Reality and the Source of nature's wonderful order. We may look for other ways of knowing ultimate reality but we will be ever closed to its truth. But why should we want to do that? That is another story.

  _________

So who made God?   This question is the essence of Dawkins' argument on page 141.   He says a Creator, in order to make such a thing as the DNA would have to be at least as complex as the DNA.   If we have to explain the origin of the DNA's complexity then we must explain the origin of the complexity of God. 
What is wrong with this argument? 
It assumes that the laws of nature (i.e. cause and effect) apply to that which is beyond nature - a patently false assumption.   If God exists then He is, by definition, beyond nature. 
Dawkins goes on to say: 
 "You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that sort of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there'. and be done with it." 

Although, no doubt Dawkins means this as a rhetorical sentence, its rhetoric can only be effective if the sentence makes any sense. But it doesn't.
It is beyond dispute that DNA and life were not always there!   No one pretends that they were.   We do not know the laws that relate to the Eternal existence of God who is beyond nature, but what we do know is that life has not always existed. 
__________
Post Script    The reader will note that I have not taken a position in the 'Creationist' verses 'Theistic Evolutionist' argument.   It is my own view that this argument, though interesting and worth pursuing, does not help the task of Christian Apologetics.   What we must do is to continue to demonstrate the absurdity of any theory that suggests that the origin and development of  life can be explained in terms of natural processes alone. 

When the enquirer has seen this, he will draw his own conclusions about its metaphysical implications and find in the Bible the 'Word of Life'.

If anyone would like to read a critique of my article I suggest he look at: http://www.emotel.co.uk/FM%20against%20Dawkins.htm
It is written by someone who frequently describes himself to me as an 'atheist missionary'. I will leave the reader to judge whether he is dealing with my substantive points or rather nit-picking as he selectively quotes from Dawkins and me.

For a simlar view to mine re the alleged power of radom mutation and natural selection I suggest the  reader  consider an advert put in the New York Times by large numbers of hightly resplected scientists. It can be found at: http://www.hgtaylor.net/scientists-against-darwinsim.pdf

If one wishes to read other articles criticising and defending Richard Dawkins' theories, a good source is: the  Royal Institute of Philosophy's articles page at: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/articles.htm.
My own assessment of the Intelligent Design movement can be found by clicking here.

If any of the above has assisted you in your thinking, study or preparation please fill in a Feedback form (see 'Feedback' link below) stating to which article/sermon note/book review etc you are referring.
Howard Taylor welcomes questions and comments (critical or not).

'Faith and the Modern World' Home Page.

Articles ; Articles in Summary ; Courses; Sermon Outlines ; Comment on Society Today ; Book Reviews ; Feedback ; Essays from my students; Biography; Moral and Social Philosophy; Other Links.