In Part I, we looked at the high-level challenges facing Dawkins’ description of Darwinism in The Blind Watchmaker. Now we shift our attention to some of the specific examples and “evidences” he uses to build the case. Continue reading
Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker to provide a “non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations.”1 The Economist magazine says it is “as readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859.” Logic & Light has addressed the theory of evolution before, but it makes sense for us to review and critique this book to ensure both sides of the debate are adequately considered.
We will do so in a two-part series. This first section will address the high-level arguments Dawkins makes and the problems with them. The second article will go into some of Dawkins more specific claims. Continue reading
There are countless attacks critics use to try and discredit Christianity. Logic & Light has addressed dozens of them and will continue to do so. However, it is also important to realize that many, if not most, of the critics’ attacks actually do nothing to jeopardize the truth of Christianity. This fact is because the foundation of Christianity is surprisingly simple and is ultimately based on three central truths. We must remember that regardless of whatever a critic may say, if these three points are correct, Christianity stands as an unassailable certainty. What are these three truths? Continue reading
The Teleological Argument is a cornerstone of Christian apologetics and claims that the strong appearance of design in the universe indicates a divine designer. One of the key evidences of the Teleological Argument is the low likelihood of such appearance of design having occurred by chance. Given that this likelihood is statistically zero, the case for intentional design is strongly supported. Continue reading
In addition to the “Problem of Evil,” one of the most common objections to the Christian faith is the supposed “hiddenness” of God. If God is real, and desires a relationship with mankind, why is He not more evident? Why can we not see clear, compelling evidence of His existence so that everyone will follow Him? As famed atheist Bertrand Russell reportedly remarked when asked what he would say to God to justify his unbelief if they met in the afterlife: “God, you gave us insufficient evidence.”1 Continue reading
Another hurdle for evolution is to explain so-called “irreducible complexity.” The challenge is how evolution, through small, incremental steps can explain complex systems with many intricate, interdependent parts. Continue reading
One of the most contentious issues within evolution is the idea that mankind evolved “from monkeys.” According to evolutionary theory, humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor five to ten million years ago.1 This theory is based on genetic similarities between humans and apes, estimates from our “genetic clocks,” and a supposed wealth of fossil evidence that shows a gradual shift in physiology bridging the gap between the two.
It is true that the vast majority of biologists, geneticists, and paleoanthropologists accept “ape to man” evolution. What you may not know however, is that there is significant debate within the scientific community about how this process could have occurred. Contrary to popular opinion, the evidence supporting this progression is anything but clear. The neat, clean diagrams shown in text books and discussed in mainstream media are myths. Even evolutionary scientists admit this fact: Continue reading
Next, we turn our attention to the fossil record. As stated in Part I, the fossil record does illustrate an increase in complexity over time, from single-celled to multi-celled to more complicated life, as evolution predicts. But does the rest of the fossil record match up with the evolutionary model? Continue reading
While the genetic evidence at first seems like one of the strongest arguments in favor of evolution, it’s ultimately the theory’s largest Achilles heel. Ironically, the more science has learned about DNA and genetics, the more apparent evolution’s challenges have become. Continue reading