Skip to main content

The question Richard Dawkins can't answer

 

For Richard Dawkins, Darwinian evolution can only take you so far.   It's one possible explanation for the variety of life on this planet.   But at some point the series of events must take one back to the first molecule that was able to self-replicate.   When asked where that came from or how that happened, he said "I don't know."   He also said that nobody knows.   When asked if intelligence could have played a part in the origin of the first self-replicating molecule, Dawkins said that an "intriguing possibility" is that an alien race from another part of the universe planted this design for the first self-replicating molecule here on Earth and that's how it got straited.

It seems that his scenario just moves the original question from this to planet to some other.   Dawkins actually admits to the evidence of design, and even grants that intelligence could have played a role in the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.    His contention, though, that the source of the intelligence was a being who also evolved isn't a sufficient answer.   OK, how did the process that produce that being get started?   Some other even more intelligent race?   Where does it end?   Perhaps Dawkins should have just left it at "I don't know."    

 

For more info: 

Comprehensive interview between Greg Koukl and Dr. Stephen Meyer

Article: One flew over the Darwinists' nest

What is intelligent design?

Comments

  • Mark in Los Angeles 5 years ago

    No, you have it all wrong. Evolution isn't just one possible explanation for life on Earth, it is the BEST explanation available. Just because scientists don't know the exact mechanism for the origin of life (they are getting closer to understanding this mechanism every day actually), does not mean that there is not a mountain of evidence in support of evolutionary theory. Postulating an intelligent creator is simply a bad argument (who created the creator?), whereas postulating that complexity arose out of simplicity (even the very laws of physics themselves could have arisen out of chaos) is a coherent and sustainable argument.

  • Jim 5 years ago

    And now we have found an amino acid on a comet. So, now we know where complex molecules come from, how they evolve and how we got here. The hard questions are "why is there something rather than nothing?" and "why?" Those are the questions without answers.

  • Torben in UK 5 years ago

    "Dawkins actually admits to the evidence of design, ...". NO HE DIDN'T.

    Watch this on clip Youtube 6XpP5jsg5kM and get wiser on what Dawkins said and meant:

  • Arthur 5 years ago

    @"Darwinian evolution can only take you so far."

    Correct. Darwinian evolution does not address the origin of life. It never did. Evolution is the process which explains the current diversity of life. The mechanics of evolution are observable, and were confirmed by Mendel's studies of genetics and the work of numerous scientists ever since. Darwin's model of natural selection remains consistent with current theory, but was surpassed long ago.

    Abiogenesis is the field which attempts to discover the origins of life, not Evolution. Though research continues to make significant discoveries regarding the creation of DNA and early cell life, an overall Scientific theory has not yet been established. Which means it is still at the hypothesis stage. Theories like Gravity and Evolution are firmly established, not Abiogenesis. That's why Dawkins says he does not know, and as an Evolutionary biologist, it isn't even his field to know. He offers a hypothesis like everyone else.

  • Chris Burns in UK 5 years ago

    I think that Dawkins does not “admit” to or acknowledge any evidence of design. Rather he says it is a possibility that the first living thing on the planet could have been the result of an intelligent design, eg by aliens. It’s an intriguing idea but not one supported by any particular evidence.

    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution by natural selection is about. It is a theory that explains how life diversified from common ancestors. It does not explain or attempt to explain where life originated. It is a logical theory and it explains mounds of evidence.

    Newton’s theories of gravity explain how masses are attracted to each other but they don’t explain where mass comes from in the first place. Your argument seems similar to saying Newton’s theories may be false because they don’t explain the origin of mass.

    You say that Dawkins should say he doesn’t know the origin of life, but it seems to me that this is exactly what he did say.

  • Rohan 5 years ago

    Are you being serious?? Of course Dawkins doesn't know how life began! Who does??

    Dawkins has admitted that life APPEARS to be designed to the academically lazy but that this is an illusion.

    Dawkins' new book "The Greatets Show on earth" will challenge anyway who believes in a "desinger"

  • Susan 5 years ago

    Doug: "Dawkins actually admits to the evidence of design..."

    What evidence for design did Dawkins admit to? If he admitted it, please state it for us.

    This is the whole point of science. Since can't find ANY evidence for a designer. If a science had evidence for a designer, then science'd be studying that evidence. And it would be cool, and Dawkins would change his designer scale appropriate to the amount of evidence for it and the evidence's ability to fit in with all the other known scientific ideas.

  • Roger 5 years ago

    I think Dawkins and his science friends are just going to get a headache trying to work out complicated things that nobody understands yet. Why don't we just say a Magic Fairy did it and move on?

  • Mick 5 years ago

    Professor Dawkins was asked a question and he answered it thoughtfully and honestly, showing far more integrity than the producers of this film (Dawkins was lied to about the nature of the interview in order to ensure his involvement). As usual I am impressed by his manner and his intellect.

  • Mike 5 years ago

    I'm really impressed by the tactful and knowledgeable replies to this otherwise un-informed article. After reading it I braced myself for the mixture of comments that usually range from the ignorant to the well intentioned but inaccurate. Way to go general public intelligence!

  • Ray 5 years ago

    The clip is from a creationist propaganda film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", in which the producers approached Professor Dawkins under false pretenses and dishonestly told him they were making a film that would be neutral with regard to evolution vs. creationism. They then asked him to speculate if there was any way intelligent design could be true. He answered in good faith, bring up the alien designer scenario while making it clear that he did not believe in it himself, and that it would only postpone the question of how life ultimately originated. The producers then edited the interview to misrepresent Dawkins' position.

  • colin lyne . 9 months ago

    Richard Dawkins disagrees with himself . When interviewed on the subject of design he said he did not believe it . Then he was asked whether he believed in any design at all and he said no . In less than a minute the interviewer asked him to explain the big bang in the light of what appeared to be design in all sorts of aspects to life and he said something must have designed it ! That is funny I thought he did not believe in design ? I can not take a man seriously who can not agree with himself . He should not attack Christianity as he knows to little about it . He even believed Jesus was born in Nazareth ! The 6 year olds in our church know better than that . He also does not know the full title of Darwins book on the Origin of the species . Do not keep embarrassing yourself Richard .

  • colin lyne . 9 months ago

    Richard Dawkins disagrees with himself . When interviewed on the subject of design he said he did not believe it . Then he was asked whether he believed in any design at all and he said no . In less than a minute the interviewer asked him to explain the big bang in the light of what appeared to be design in all sorts of aspects to life and he said something must have designed it ! That is funny I thought he did not believe in design ? I can not take a man seriously who can not agree with himself . He should not attack Christianity as he knows to little about it . He even believed Jesus was born in Nazareth ! The 6 year olds in our church know better than that . He also does not know the full title of Darwins book on the Origin of the species . Do not keep embarrassing yourself Richard .

  • Carrie 6 months ago

    All I get from Dawkins is that if the questions get really hard and might point to a God or a designer then that just isn't possible. There is no, no or yes there is simply... it just isn't possible. That's not really an answer just because I wish something isn't true doesn't mean that there is no possibility it is. They say Christian just use their imagination and wish things away. It sounds like that's what Dawkins does. Also in many of his interviews he says that no science doesn't have all the answers and that they can't know everything and yet that is exactly the opposite of what I was taught in school. The word science/ evolution it's a fact is tossed around like it's a for sure thing. Is it really a for sure thing? Is there any room for doubt at all and if so stop teaching people it is 100% fact. You seem uncomfortable with the idea of God if that's the case that is your problem not other people's. Dawkins also stated during a debate that archeologists don't believe Jesus was a real person that lived, when in fact my atheist archeologists believe Jesus really lived. If what Dawkins believes is true why the need to lie? Just to fool people and make money. It's an awfully large gamble you're asking people to take and you have to lie to make your point. I'm sorry the bigger questions in life make Dawkins uncomfortable. Scientists should answer the big question not shirk from them because you may not like the answers about God.