Excerpts from Dave's myth-busting 606-page hardcover book, Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny...a brilliant and devastating exposé of evolution that leaves atheists without excuse and leads them to a loving Creator.
When Richard Dawkins speaks, the world listens. He's the expert, the one-time Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. We are charging Dawkins with betraying that trust by giving the public misinformation about science. He does so in a number of his books, speeches, and debates, a fact that we will continue to document in the following pages. He is the de facto leader of the New Atheists, who gave themselves this name to call attention to the fact that the "old atheism," once headed by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, was far too mild. As we've already mentioned, the New Atheists call themselves "the brights" and the implication is that anyone stupid enough to believe in God is a dimwit.
Dawkins's life and career are devoted to destroying any belief in any god, especially the God of the Bible, for whom he reserves a special hatred. He admits that "All of us share a kind of religious reverence for the beauty of the universe, for the complexity of life, for the sheer magnitude of geological time. It's so tempting to believe that living things . . . or that stars or mountains or rivers have all been made by something. It was a supreme achievement of the human intellect to realize that there is a better explanation . . . that these things can come about by purely natural causes. . . ." Dawkins recognizes that what he is saying contradicts our normal feelings when we behold the beauties of nature.
This is a damning admission for atheists. It ought to be embarrassing that the theory of evolution is what Dawkins admits is counterintuitive. How could that be? He is confessing that there is something inside us that can act contrary to our genes. . . . Well, then, this "intuitive" feeling that runs counter to the theory of evolution can't originate in our genes. It can't be physical. Where could this free-will, rational impulse come from, this desire for something so at odds with natural selection?
It cannot be true, as atheism's natural selection would force us to believe, that our thoughts are simply the result of the motions of atoms in our brains that all began with a "big bang" and have been proceeding without guidance ever since. Isn't this an admission that materialism does not have the answers to everything, unlike what atheists would have us believe and as Dawkins so often asserts?
So Dawkins states repeatedly with unabashed certainty that "we know essentially how life began." On the contrary, we don't even know what life is, so how could we know how it began? Until atheists can explain what life is, it is an outright deceit to pretend to explain how it "evolved." Atheists and evolutionists are playing a game of pretense, trying to build a natural-selection structure in the air without first laying the foundation. It's just a dream. As C. S. Lewis so ably argued: "If minds are wholly dependent on brains and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of wind in the trees."
In spite of Dawkins's wishful thinking, "ordinary processes of physics and chemistry," which are purely physical and not biological, will never create life. All physics and chemistry have to work with is dead matter. The law of biogenesis declares that dead matter cannot produce life. "Spontaneous generation" was proved to be a superstition without one iota of truth. This delusion was abandoned nearly 150 years ago as a result of Pasteur's discovery that when microorganisms are killed by heat no life can arise; but in the name of "science," this folklore has been promoted to the status of fact in order to defend atheism.
No matter how many or how large the new "stable forms of atoms" that are produced, they are still composed of dead matter. Dead matter does not bring forth life, regardless of how large the molecules it forms, even if "natural selection" has produced them. The only way Dawkins can continue to spin his yarn of uncreated life is to ignore the law of biogenesis. He can only bring his tale to a happy ending by a violation of that law. But universal laws of science, including the law of biogenesis, are called "laws" because they allow no exceptions. They cannot be broken.
As Dawkins admits, life requires DNA, and that contains encoded information written in words--"a digitally coded data base," as he calls it. Information, written in words and encoded, that gives directions for constructing and operating every cell in the body--all of this incredibly detailed and complex data, beyond our capacity to understand, was devised and imprinted on DNA by natural selection? It is merely a theory, and it certainly neither thinks nor plans. That theory gave birth to Dawkin's "digitally organized data base" of information that is beyond our capability to explain? Now that takes faith!
Bringing life out of dead matter is more amazing than any miracle the Bible presents. Primitive self-replicating molecules cannot create information--that process takes nothing less than an intelligence. In referring to the information provided by the DNA for constructing and operating the body--all of it on the single cell from which each human begins, Dawkins declares, "When you were first conceived you were just a single cell, endowed with one master copy of the architect's plans."
Architect's plans without an Architect? Dawkins has to acknowledge that DNA contains detailed, written instructions for building and operating millions of incredibly complex and ingenious nano-chemical machines in trillions of cells joined together, each in its proper place and relationship to the others and to the whole. These amazing blueprints couldn't possibly be conceived and encoded into language except by an Infinite Intelligence. But Dawkins's "definition" turns mindless matter into an engineering genius via his god, "natural selection."
Richard Dawkins dares to say, "I show that all the alternatives to Darwinism that have ever been suggested are in principle incapable of . . . explaining the organized complexity of life. . . . My reasoning, if it is correct, tells us something important about life everywhere in the universe." If it is correct? He acknowledges that this is just a theory, and a shaky one at that--but that doesn't prevent him from proceeding as though it were true because he has no other hope to explain life on earth. It must be correct--this is the best his atheism can offer--and atheism is the one thing he will not abandon under any circumstance.
Has he shown us that Darwinism can "explain the organized complexity of life?" No, he hasn't even come within miles of doing that. Darwinism fails completely in this respect. Nor has Dawkins ever shown that creation by God could not account for the "organized complexity of life. . . ." In fact, it is the only alternative that can! But he won't even consider that possibility. So the religion of atheism hampers the scientist in research and judgment because it restricts him to only one point of view. . . . The atheist cannot be this open-minded. He cannot "allow a Divine Foot in the door," and that restricts his research and intellectual honesty. There is no such person as an "atheistic theist" who would be comparable to a theistic evolutionist.
Richard Dawkins admits that "Darwin's answer to the question of the origin of species was . . . that species were descended from other species." This is no answer at all! It's a far cry from origin of species, as the title of Darwin's first book promised, and as Dawkins claims Darwin achieved. What was the first species, and how did it come into existence? Darwin doesn't tell us, nor does Dawkins. . . . Evolutionists/atheists are now telling us that the law of biogenesis isn't really a law. It has been violated not just once but millions of times all over the universe! To accept Darwinism is tantamount to rejecting the very foundations of science itself. Everything is up for grabs.
And when we come to the question of origins, the lips of science are tightly sealed. Science can't explain the origin of either matter or life. We have merely substituted new words to cover our ignorance and pretend we've made an advance. As far as ultimate reality is concerned, however, we are still where primitive man was before "science" deluded us with false hope. . . . The more we investigate, the clearer it becomes that the New Atheists are trying to force upon the entire world a rejection of God that is contrary to what the majority are willing to believe, at least at this point.
Dawkins concedes, "There are still gaps in our understanding. We don't understand how the cosmos came into existence in the first place. . . . " This is Dawkins's standard escape hatch whenever he is confronted with the many questions for which atheism and evolution have no answer. Instead of admitting that science has nothing to say about what is good, what is evil, what is beautiful, what is ugly, where did we come from, where are we going, etc. (as many of the greatest scientists have frankly confessed), Dawkins sings the same worn-out song, "We're working on that."
Dave's prayer, and TBC's, is that the hundreds of quotes and examples in Cosmos will not be used to condemn the lost, but to save them: "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me"(Romans:10:20b).