The Dawkins Delusion

Reference taken from:

Book: The God Delusion

Publisher: Black Swan, paperback edition

Page number:138

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable." The above quotation is found in the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, page no: 138.This is the first and foremost argument that Richard Dawkins gives us in chapter four entitled “why there is almost certainly no God”. His argument is (I am just rephrasing) as follows:

It is very improbable that life evolved, unassisted by God. Thus, the existence of God, must be at least as improbable as the evolution of life because life happens to be designed by God Himself. Thus the existence of God is very improbable. Thus there is almost certainly no God.

This argument has impressed a lot of people all over the world and is one of Dawkins’ most amazing arguments, going by how he has ‘freed’ people from the God ‘delusion’ with this masterstroke. However much as I would like to agree with Dawkins, (because free sex and meat become easy to enjoy…, or so it seems…) I have to raise my hand and ask a meek question.

This form of reasoning seems flawed for the following reasons:

If God is allowed to exist then it is He who is causing life to evolve the way it has (if there was any evolution).  If you see a watch and know that  the watchmaker (who can see) exists, then what is the probability that the watch was designed by the watchmaker ? At least very high. Then we do not worry about the various permutations and combinations involved in the construction of the watch.  We know with great certainty that the watch was constructed by the watchmaker and there is little doubt about it.

However, if God is NOT allowed to exist then life has evolved due to a blind, random process. If you see a watch this time and know that there exists no watchmaker it is only then that you wonder about the permutations and combinations of the various arrangements in the watch and wonder how the watch came into existence, unassisted by a watchmaker. It is only then that you wonder how the watch came into existence from clay and mud etc. It is only then that you calculate the probability of the watch coming into existence.

You cannot say there is God, yet He has nothing to do with the evolution of life, and that because life evolved by a blind process, whose probability is very low, the probability of God’s existence is also low.

Either life evolved due to the will of God or due to a blind process.  It is difficult to see, how both have simultaneously taken place and how both processes have influenced each other..

Let's say you see a building. What is the probability that the building came about as a result of a hurricane during which matter got amalgamated to produce the building ?. Very Low. What is the probability that the building was built by an engineer? Very high. Now will you say that because it is very improbable that the building was assembled during a hurricane, that the poor engineer who built the building has a similar low probability of existing?  Compare this example to an analogous setting where you can replace the engineer with God, the building with life and the hurricane with evolution and you will understand the point I am trying to make. 

If Mr Dawkins feels that the Darwinian evolution has a very low probability of happening, then he should maybe question his own understanding that life had to evolve that way, rather than catch hold of a theist's collar and insist that the theist’s Creator has a very small probability of existing. Rather it is the theist who can point out to Mr Dawkins that since it is very unlikely that life evolved, maybe it just didn't happen.