Richard Dawkins wrote in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”,
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
The argument needs to be restated more honestly like, “It looks designed, but my metaphysics says it can’t be ’cause there’s no designer. Therefore, chance and necessity, evolution, must have done it”. Evolution of the gaps.
This kind of argumentation is everywhere to be found in the atheistic Darwinian literature.
So what do they do to sound “scientific” while actually promoting mere foolishness? Easy. They invent another just-so story style argument. They accuse the IDists or creationists of “arguing from ignorance” or arguing from incredulity. But, accusing an opponent of a logical fallacy is not an argument in itself. So that gives no advance to them at all in supporting the stories with evidence.
This tactic usually sounds something like this, “We don’t really have a clue how this could possibly happen and certainly no god is needed therefore here’s a story… perhaps this and perhaps that and um, if you don’t swallow the story I just made up well you’re just being ignorant and incredulous” – intellectual, psychological extortion. Then they will cite some evolutionary study that shows some minor piece of adaptation and claim its a major proof.
So is the IDist really arguing from ignorance or incredulity? Of course not. Whether he realizes it or not he is in fact arguing from physics and more precisely from a form of statistical mechanics. See my short article here.
Back to Dawkins’ statement, a quick and simple analysis:
- How does Dawkins know this? A: He doesn’t. It’s fantasy passing as science.
- It’s pure metaphysical presumption. Dawkins assumes there is no designer and then, without any thought of actually proving it, makes a bold but empty declaration, a bare unfounded assertion.
- If anything object or system with a function looks like it was designed for a purpose, why should one assume it was not? That isn’t science, that is metaphysics [religion] and in Dawkins’ case, wishful thinking. And it’s bad science at that.
- Why is something that has a function that accomplishes a distinct AND useful result not to be assumed to have a purpose and therefore a design? There is no valid reason. Indeed, neither do we ever see any offered.
Thus we see that Dawkins, while a master story teller, is a very poor logician or thinker. So what does he, and his many disciples, do when confronted with the facts of this? Well they all begin the “shake a rubber chicken” dance, while blindfolded, chanting, “I see no proof of God!”.
It gets worse believe it or not. From no less than DNA discovery Nobel laureate Francis Crick:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick
Gee, I wonder why biologists must keep this in mind. Isn’t it obvious that he would never have said this if the design was not so conspicuous that it intrinsically contradicts the biologist’s Darwinian indoctrination? If anything is clear then that much is clear.
This is exactly the same “do not go where the evidence leads if it doesn’t support materialism” mentality of Dawkins’ “designoids”.
Indeed, why on earth invent “designoids” if the appearance of design is not so overwhelming? The implications of his needing to invent designoids are obvious. Yet overwhelming as it may be, it cannot be real design because the metaphysics of these men requires it! Their religion requires denial of it, else they must convert to something other than materialism; and heaven forbid the poor souls from having to man up and do that! My goodness, it would ruin their entire false sense of security in atheism. It would also ruin their careers as professional atheist evangelists.
That’s the real vain religion for ya. That’s blind faith. The great atheist god Nothing, is supreme in their minds.