Well the first 2 paragraphs constitute no evidence against the notion of a "God" whatsoever. In the third paragraph he makes an unsubstantiated assertion. Namely where he says:
We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer .
I'll read on to see if he justifies it . . .
Ok, the 4th paragraph neither gives any justification for his statement, neither does it say anything which would constitute any evidence against a "God".
Ditto for the fifth paragraph.
Ditto for the sixth paragraph.
In the seventh paragraph he says:
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.
My understanding is that evolution operating through the physical laws of nature do not make this improbable. Of course the whole notion of probability only make sense within the context of the physical laws of nature. It would be meaningless to declare for example that it is improbable that the Universe could simply acausally spring into being from absolutely nothing at all (nothing in its absolute sense, no space-time continuum or anything).
Interestingly in the rest of the 7th paragraphy he directly contradicts what he said in the very first sentence of the 7th paragraph and agrees with me.
Anyway, nothing has been said so far which could be construed as constituting any evidence against a "God" whatsoever. But let's look at the eighth paragraph.
Nope, still no arguments which could be construed to have demonstrated the unlikelihood of a "God". He simply makes the point that the eye is incredibly unlikely to suddenly spring into being fully formed within the context of evolution operating according to the physical laws of nature. I really am unable to see the remote relevance of anything he has said so far concerning the question of the existence of a "God". Let's look at the 9th paragraph to see if things improve.
Well I've just read through paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and there is nothing in there so far which could be construed to demonstrate the unlikelihood of a "God". All he is doing is talking about evolution!
In paragraph 14 he says:
Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.
On no! Not the stupid crass conceptualisation opf "god" represented by the "God of the gaps"! Does any intelligent theist believe thus? Conversely are any atheists capable of entertaining any notion of a "God" which is not represented by a "God of the gaps"?? Well Dawkins is supposed to be arguing for the very low probability of a "God" so I presume he won't merely content himself with dreaming up the most crass concept of "God" imaginable and argue against that. So I read on in hope . . .
Oh God! Now he's starting talking about creationism! Who the hell is interested in creationism??
Come on Dawkins! Where are your arguments that the probability ofr a "god" is unlikely???
Ok, he says in the 4th paragraph from the end:
The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God.
The guy is a complete idiot. Nothing he has said remotely implies anything against the argument from design. All he has done is argue that given the way the world is changing according to the physical laws of nature, the present state of the world is to be expected. But this is wholly irrelevant to whether the world/Universe is wholly contrived! It is the fact that we do not find ourselves subsisting in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random sensations, the fact that change in the Universe is governed by rules written in the language of mathematics which could be construed as being suggestive of argument from design.
He says near the end:
There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things.
Not at all. There is no need for an explanation for the Universe. I have no problem with it simply acausally springing into being.
This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen.
Indeed. Now why don't you defend your thesis that a "God" is unlikely? I am not interested in you attacking a "God of the gaps", nor am I interested in your attacks on deism.
The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
Not so beatifully written if this paragraph is a typical example. Like you he is attacking the strawman "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of "God". One is not surprised to hear this dribbling from the lips of Peter Atkins. The guy is as moronic as you are.
Ok, as I suspected before reading the essay, Dawkins has said nothing whatsoever to justify his originnal contention.
Why am I not surprised?
