In my last post I was accused of misrepresenting Richard Dawkins’ for his statements on Darwinian evolution being non-random and yet not having purpose and foresight.
Here is the gist of my post:
“What I’ve found really interesting was Dawkins’ public statements that Darwinian evolution and its main mechanism–natural selection–are non-random.
Really? Why didn’t he say so 40 years ago?”
Apparently when Dawkins refers to Darwinian evolution he does’t include the random genetic drift, which modern evolutionists, like Larry Moran and others view as necessary as natural selection has been viewed by many as impotent when if comes to building new body plans and organs etc…or whatever evolutionists now belive…
However, as you may notice, my main theme of the post was not the non-randomness of Darwinian evolution preached by Dawkins but the implications of its non-randomness:
“But this is not the best part of the video I’ve linked.Watch carefully how Dawkins is treading lightly to avoid the obvious connection that can be and should be made between non-random process and purpose of evolution, because that could implicate that life could have been intelligently designed…
So as you can see above, I was more focused on Dawkins’ deliberate avoidance of the implications of non-randomness of Darwinian evolution that could be linked with Intelligent Design.
Same idea continues:
“So, this must be one of those mysteries of evolution where (Darwinian) evolution, although being non-random, lacking purpose, foresight and forethought, is still mysteriously able to create beautiful living things Dawkins can’t doubt anymore they are and reluctantly acknowledges it…”
I don’t see any misrepresentation here either…
However, by Dawkins claiming that unintelligent and yet on-random processes with no purpose are able to design and create living organisms that intelligent humans can’t even dream about replicating, he ascribes god-like-creative powers (much, much superior to humans) to nature.
It’s mind boggling how devious this man is. If there was a hell, he would be burning his ass there for his deceit.
Now, if you still think I’ve misrepresented Dawkins by questioning the non-randomness of Darwinian evolution and him being deceitful about it, watch the next video.
Pay special attention to Dawkins’s statements about the possibility “…that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution…”
So, if Dawkins accepts the “…possibility that some form of Intelligent Designer (s) that could have designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet… that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer…”
why would questioning his deliberate avoidance of these very statements be view as a misrepresentation?
If Dawkins accepts that some kind of intelligent designer could have designed life on earth, why would he insist that the evolution of that life be without any purpose or foresight? He already accepted that it is non-random….Isn’t it what design is? Purposeful?