The Richard Dawkins Delusion (Part 4) – God Yes, Cranes No
Richard Dawkins and those who believe in him are truly, DELUSIONAL (Part 4)
Last year I read, “The God Delusion” written by Richard Dawkins. From time to time I like to read about the secular world religion of Atheism and Richard Dawkins is one of the current leading atheist evangelistic writers on Atheism so last year I picked his book to read. The purpose of this series of articles is a critique of the deluded book from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
As I was reading Dawkins’ evangelism of Atheism through his ramblings, musings and distortions he has in his deluded book, I decided to take a few notes and do some writing of my own. This series of articles points out some of the numerous points within Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion” that made me think the most. This series of articles goes somewhat along with the chapters of Dawkins’ delusional book but not totally. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Richard Dawkins within this series of articles come from directly from his deluded book, The God Delusion. If you have not read Part 1, 2 and 3 of this series of articles, I suggest that you do so prior to reading Part 4 so that you have the proper background for where Part 4 picks up in my review of Richard Dawkins’ deluded book. The Richard Dawkins Delusion (Part 1)
As Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion, made a disclaimer, I make this disclaimer for this series of articles in unparalleled presumption of respect to Richard Dawkins and those who believe in him and in the religion of Atheism. Also, I include agnostics who in hopes of their self-proclaimed ignorance that when their time comes to be able to debate their righteousness with God based on their ignorance of enough evidence to believe. I will not go out of my way to offend any of you yet I will handle myself as a true follower of Christ Jesus and be salt of the earth in pointing you to absolute truth and the utter delusion told of in Dawkins’ book. (Matthew 5:13) (Romans 1:16)
God Yes, Cranes No
‘"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!" In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd. But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.’
An Airplane Will yet No Crane Will
It took until page 189 in chapter four of his greatly deluded book named, “The God Delusion” that Richard Dawkins makes his personal assumption’s main conclusion that, “God almost certainly does not exist.” What a letdown moment. All that ranting he went on and on about to well, let me spell out what Richard Dawkins’ personal assumption is in non-deluded words: Richard Dawkins is actually saying in non-deluded words that, God may truly exist.
Wow, so Richard Dawkins writes four chapters of demented delusions about religion and God, twisted other people’s words around to fit within his personal assumption, put down a number of people for their saying that his personal assumption is wrong just so to further encircle his prey with his biased personal assumption to merely state again that he is just an agnostic and say that God may exist. Just how far will Richard Dawkins go to delude, track and ensnare his prey into thinking that his biased personal assumption is the supreme truth? Keep reading and you’ll find out how far the infamous Professor Richard Dawkins goes.
Well, in his so proclaimed great wisdom the absolute very best that Richard Dawkins gives to try and prove his personal assumption is that a great big whooping crane swooped in and created the whole universe (maybe even as he deludes created multiple universes which is even more farfetched and without evidence) then goes on to delude that a different yet not so big whooping crane created all life on earth as we know it today. Does this guy get into some serious science fiction or what! Ah, but wait it gets even better, well, still even wackier.
I mean, come on and really think about what Richard Dawkins is actually saying in his deluded book. Richard Dawkins is saying that these whooping cranes are but purely limited gods. I’m sure if he were asked that Richard Dawkins would say that these whooping cranes have always existed (if not from where did they come?) with one ultimate god whooping crane which created the little god whooping cranes that over eons of time they all decided to create at least one universe and put some life on at least one planet. Really Professor Dawkins, is this the best that you can do?
Now get this. Richard Dawkins on page 147 of his delusional book wrote that chance fails as a solution to the problem and that “[Darwinism] natural selection is the real solution.” Then a just a few pages later in the book the deluded logic falls into place to show how Richard Dawkins’ delusional state of mind thinks Darwinism natural selection is the solution. Just what does Richard Dawkins attribute his main conclusion to, luck. Yes, that’s right he ascribes it all too “sheer luck” on page 168 in his deluded book. Even more so he goes on page 169 that more “major infusions of luck” are needed to really fill in the gaps.
What a “luck of the gaps” is sheer luck to Richard Dawkins! I’m sure that Richard Dawkins will get luckier in his delusional state of mind! At the least he will try to delude his prey with such with luck but you are not going to fall for luck are you. You are not going to fill in the gaps of your knowledge about God with just sheer luck, right? You surely aren’t that stupid, are you to believe Richard Dawkins?
When was luck turned into something significant of any quantitative value? Is it only when Richard Dawkins needs it to delude and attack his prey? Yes, only in Richard Dawkins’ deceitful ways is luck so powerfully quantitative and meaningful. Just think of the fondue Richard Dawkins (and his kind) would create if Christians had said that, “Luck is the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to Chance but through luck.” (John 14:6) Recall from part three of this series of articles that there is proven quantitative evidence that absolutely establishes the Holy Bible as authentic and accurate. Yet Richard Dawkins praises luck as if it were actually a proven something meaningful in his personal assumption. My oh my how grasping Richard Dawkins and his kind are at deluding their prey’s thought processes into thinking that luck has anything to do with life. What one does for power over others is shown in example within Richard Dawkins deluded pursuit of his prey through whatever means in his deluded book.
How can anyone in their right mind base anything on luck? Would you place your life in jeopardy based on the chance that luck will save you? Read the previous sentence again. Note that I didn’t say that you are already in jeopardy and are going on the chance that luck will save you. Will you bet your life on the chance that luck will save you? If so, you and Richard Dawkins blindly have a delusional faith in luck! You better watch out because your luck will run out sooner than you think. You best place your life in a well-founded decision based on the truth and not chance it on major infusions of sheer luck.
Back to reality we come… Remember, you are testing your faith in atheism with your reading this book so to fully be an atheist you have to continue to prove faith in it. Just believing in something without checking out the other side of the story doesn’t cut it with me. I have to know about it all. I read the deluded book by Richard Dawkins among other deluded sources to test my faith in Christ Jesus. These delusional books and other sources strengthened my faith in God as I can see the hypocrisy and foolishness in them. Not to mention the closed mindedness and predatory tactics that the writers like Richard Dawkins use to capture their unsuspecting prey with vivid delusional imaginations, deluded half-truths and flat out lies. So stick with it and keep reading to test your faith and maybe if you are studious you will learn something.
Are you still tolerant of my writing? How’s it going so far? Having any luck in finding your way through it? (Sorry again, I just couldn’t resist as the temptation got the better of me.) Have you started looking into the references I have pointed you to? No time like the present to start doing so to further test your faith beyond your continuing to read this series of articles. Don’t just take my word for it, look up the facts I present to you for yourself. Also, take your time and don’t rush through it but don’t take too long as life on earth is too short to waste it and to lose the most critical choice you truly need to make in it.
Luck has nothing to do with the universe or life as we currently know it. God is clear of Richard Dawkins’ deluded limited misunderstanding of any of the gods that he has portrayed to you his prey. God is beyond anyone’s full comprehension and is by far more powerful than anything anyone can ever grasp. God is vastly complex yet can be quite simple and is far beyond our limited comprehension. God is infinite. All creation God made. (Genesis 1:1-31)
There are no gaps to fill with God as He has created us, everything that we can see and know of and has created everything that we will ever see and know about in our finite understanding within our finite lifetimes on earth. God has given to each of us uniquely the ability to learn, to create, to explore and to discover. Yet God has given us vastly so many clues to give proof of His existence so subtlety and so ingeniously as to not overpower the free choice He gave us to choose to follow Him. The ultimate choice that only you must make for yourself that no one else can make for you and a choice that you have to make prior to your earthly demise. (Romans 1:20-32)
Just think about this for a while. Whether or not you have a child, you were once one. How much did your biological mother love you? How much did your biological father love you? You knowing either of them or not is not the question being asked of you to answer. How much did your biological father and mother love you while you were a child? As you are today, how much fatherly and motherly love does either of them give to you? Could you forcefully make either your father or mother in any way and by any means love you? Could you reveal to either of them something that would make either of them love you more than they ever loved you?
I was blessed with a great father and mother who loved me sincerely. There were many times throughout my childhood and adolescents that I let them down in some way or another but there were never anything that I could have done to make them love me any more or less nor for that matter even love me at all. Both of my parents chose to love me because they each made the choice to do so. The same is with your parents and anyone else you encounter too. People love you or not, not because you make them love you as no matter what you do or don’t do, a person loves you because that person made a choice to love you or not. (2 Thessalonians 3:5)
Loving someone is a choice that one makes to embrace another in a very special non selfish caring and giving way freely expressed. No one can make you love them just like you cannot make anyone love you. You are living in a deluded state if mind and thought if you think that there is anything that you can do to make someone love you. Neither you nor anyone else can create love in anyone. You can choose to love someone or to not love someone but you cannot creatively craft someone else into loving you.
If you could assemble something that causes someone to love you, how would you feel? I mean, you wanted a person to love you and you made it happen through your formulation of a scheme to trick him or her into loving you and now that person per the result of your scheme, loves you. Or, you actually found that love potion number nine which really works and you used it on that guy or gal next door whom you’ve just had an attraction to for, for so long yet he or she was involved with someone else but now due to that crafty potion, loves you instead. Would that be love? Could that be love? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding, NO! You know it isn’t love too. Love is freely expressed by someone to another and using any scheme to trick or potion to persuade is not allowing free expression as it is forcefully deluding the expression into something which is not freely chosen nor given. (1 John 4:8)
Contrast God’s love for each one of us in that He does not want to impede upon the free will that He gave to us yet He wants us to love him. God could do something like what was in the short story in part three of this series of articles where He stops time and all else then speaks directly to you which would in most cases make someone who experienced it to believe in Him but as we saw in the short story did not make the atheist love God. Again, love is a choice that each one of us makes to freely give very special non selfish caring and giving focused outside of our self. God knows that if He were to force us to love Him that it would not be true love. It also goes against the very nature of God to force anything upon us to impede the free will with which He gave to us.
Richard Dawkins deludes that there are no life changing experiences as they are only hallucinations, figments of the imagination and such. Richard Dawkins is so caught up into his own selfish power strive to capture his prey in any way that he can that he will go to great lengths and say anything to confuse and persuade them away from making logical choices for themselves. His stating that there are no live changing events is just another one of his ways to delude you his prey away from thinking anything other than his delusions are truth.
There are many life changing experiences that I have read about. Some where someone was given such a powerfully moving experience of the afterlife that the person’s whole outlook on life and death was changed. Most of these cases were experiences other than God’s love for them but were the exact opposite which was God’s love not being there for them because they had made a choice to not love God or being a procrastinator had just not made a choice. The most famous person I know of this type of life changing experience happening to is the great two time heavy weight boxing champion of the world, who also now sells the famous Lean Mean Grilling Machine named after him, George Foreman. Per my reading of George Foreman’s book, “God in My Corner” it did not sound like something I would want to personally experience yet it was a very life changing event for George Foreman.
Another type of life changing experience I read about was that of the late Pistol Pete Maravich. Yes, the Pistol Pete Maravich who had more than 40 NCAA records (many of which still stand today); an average of 44 points per game at LSU and 24 points per game over his ten years in the NBA; five Sports Illustrated covers; and an illustrious collection of awards, records, milestones, and landmarks too numerous to list. Nevertheless, the awards, records, and recognition were not what ultimately defined Pete Maravich. By his own admission, he reached a point in his life where he realized that fame and fortune were ultimately meaningless in the eternal scheme of things. As he would later say, “Money will buy you anything but happiness. It’ll pay your fare to every place but heaven.” And so, on a rainy night in 1982, he asked Jesus Christ to fill his life and his heart.
For the remainder of his days on earth, which ended in 1988, “Pistol Pete’s” passion was not basketball or any other earthly pursuit, but his love for God and his desire to share it with others. You can hear Pistol Pete in his own voice and words tell his life changing experience at this link: http://listen.family.org/daily/A000001584.cfm
Life is all about making choices and encountering various degrees of life changing experiences. To say otherwise is purely foolish nonsense. To say that luck is involved with life is entirely delusional and does not give credit to anyone’s skills and knowledge. To say that major infusions of sheer luck are needed for life is just downright nothing but pure stupidity to the point of pure insanity if one actually believes it.
Here is a personal experience that I had a few years ago to describe to you the difference between luck and knowledge. As you are reading it, figure out from it if it was luck or knowledge that caused the outcome.
Today I am a private pilot with about 300 hours of flying time as Pilot in Command (PIC) in single engine land airplanes. I like getting the experience of landing at various airports as each one has a special challenge about it to keep one on one’s toes. I will often go flying just to make numerous landings for the extra practice. I enjoy flying.
I did my study for the ground training on my own through the purchase of various books and other materials to use so that I could pass the written FAA test which is required before one can actually obtain a pilot license. A number of people I know did the flight training first then the ground school but then had to go back and do some more flight training in order to pass the required check ride with a FAA examiner. I thought that it would be best (and cheaper) for me to pass the written test before I did any flight training where I would actually fly in an airplane. So, I passed the written test and then found a good flight school nearby for my flight training.
When I was in flight school, I listened very carefully to Kevin, my flight instructor. Kevin had taught numerous student pilots to obtain their private pilot license before but I was his very first student pilot he was to teach from the very first introduction flight. Before our flights, Kevin was extremely meticulous with his teaching me the very basic fundamentals of the airplane’s systems, flight characteristics and what to do and what not to do in case of emergencies. After each of our preflight training sessions, Kevin and I would go fly and would practice in the air what we had covered prior to take off. We would do steep turns, stalls, slow flight and various other maneuvers I needed to master so to pass the FAA examiner’s evaluation of my flying skills.
My heart skipped a beat, my stomach churned and an uneasy adrenalin rush hit me the day when Kevin and I were flying and he said, “The engine just died.” Not to my notice, he had pushed the throttle in to lower the engine’s RPMs to low idle. Kevin looked seriously toward me and asked, “You are the PIC, what are you going to do, Victor?”
Skipping ahead a couple of months and now I’m signed off to solo flight and have been told by Kevin to write up a flight plan that will take me to two airports with one that I had not flown into before more than 50 nautical miles away from my local airport. I was about to make my first solo cross country flight! I wrote up a flight plan that would take me on a direct route to an airport southwest at 66 nautical miles from my local airport. I selected my second airport to be one that I would fly to on the return trip which was just a bit east and north of the first. I informed Kevin of my plan and of what altitudes I would be flying. Seeing that there is a Class B (big airport), some mountains and some military installations between my home airport and where I would be going, Kevin suggested that I fly at 6,500 feet on the way to the first airport and then fly back at 2,500 for the second leg of the trip which would be on the other side of the mountains and military installations. All was set and I took off.
All was going well. I was checking off my check points one by one as I came to them. The timing of each check point came and went just as calculated during my planning. All was well until just over halfway into the first leg of flight when my airplane’s engine quit running!
Here I was flying solo at 6,500 feet in an airplane with the engine not running. At first I wanted to think, “No, this isn’t happening” but I knew it really was and that I needed to acknowledge the predicament that I was in or that I would not make it to safety. I said a quick prayer asking God for assistance to stay calmly in control of my thinking and then Kevin’s meticulous training kicked in and I did one of the most important flight training instructions he ever gave to me which is to; continue to fly the airplane no matter what happens. Which I did, I did not panic and I continued to fly the airplane. Having listened to Kevin’s instructions and practicing with him emergency situations, I was able to use the knowledge and skills that I had acquired to quickly create a plan of action that got me to an airport and a safe landing.
Now some of you may say, “Wow, you are lucky!” Others of you may say, “Hey, what’s the chance of you not even having your pilot license being able to land at an airport with an airplane that the engine isn’t running?”
Yet many more of you see that luck and chance wasn’t in the story at all. My flight planning prior to the flight took me near numerous airports, large and small. My flight altitude for the first leg of the trip had me high enough to be clear of the mountains and be able to glide a great distance. My taking responsibility for my actions of continuing to fly the airplane instead of denial and wasting precious time is what got me to safety. No one else could have made that choice for me. I was the only one in the airplane. Knowing God’s love for me helped me keep my calm so that I didn’t panic. Skill that I had from the practice Kevin and I did flying and the knowledge I had learned in my study with Kevin’s meticulous teaching skills along with my accepting the predicament that I was in is what kept me flying the airplane and is what got me to that airport for a safe landing.
Contrast my story with Richard Dawkins’ major infusions of sheer luck. He would have had me thinking, “Well, I really need some major infusions of sheer luck to get myself out of this one, don’t I? I guess I’ll just press my luck and take a chance on a soft crash into the ground and if I’m lucky I’ll make it through the crash. Life is only major infusions of luck anyway.” And, “Maybe I’ll be lucky and one of those great big whooping cranes will swoop in and save me?” (Yes, I know but I admit it is too much fun for me to do than to stop.)
Hey, Professor Dawkins here’s some common things that you seem to be mixed up on that I hope you understand after reading this. North being “up” on most all maps, navigational charts and sectionals is not arbitrary as you stated on page 140 of your deluded book… it is called standardization so to not cause confusion to people using them. Also, when people refer to the earth, they normally refer to it with regard to their homeland in mind… not arbitrarily always to the northern hemisphere as you said in your deluded book on page 139 when talking about the astronauts away in the starship. Wow, to confuse and trap your prey into thinking your way, you sneak in those deluded little comments into all of your writing don’t you?
Darwinism Natural Selection Dulls One’s Consciousness
I guess if one is into really intense science fiction with very little if any reality bases one could get a kick out of reading about Darwinism natural selection. There are so many gaps of sheer luck in it that to me, I just don’t see how anyone can put their faith in it. Anything that needs major infusions of luck to fill the gaps just is not appealing to me because I don’t live my life based on luck. I live my life based on God with well-founded informed decisions that I make through my research and study of the truth… my life is not based on luck.
Those great big swooping whooping cranes are kind of eerie the way they are limited little gods and all in their being around forever creating the universe (or universes as one who has fallen prey to Richard Dawkins and his kind believe) and that they have created not so great big swooping little whooping cranes creating life and all through the power of sheer luck. This and scientology together could make a science fiction TV series! The late L. Ron Hubbard was one and Richard Dawkins is a great science fiction writer. The series could be called, “Natural Scientology Selection; Soaring with the great Whooping Crane!” The first episode could be titled, “The Great Whooping Crane Outing!” I don’t think I would watch it because it is way too far out there for me to get into let alone waste my time viewing.
To claim as Richard Dawkins does in his deluded book, “The God Delusion” on page 139 that Darwinism natural selection is a consciousness-raiser is a huge stretch of anyone’s imagination to actually believe. Trying to get people to have faith that major infusions of sheer luck are actually something powerful and important just doesn’t cut it with me as a consciousness-raiser unless one puts it into the correct perspective of it being science fiction. Even in the correct perspective of science fiction it doesn’t so much raise consciousness as it does to dull it. Think about it, who in their right mind would ever believe in luck? Yet however the leprechaun Richard Dawkins is spreading his lucky charms and is getting away with deluding his prey in that he the great whooping crane pixie is writing truth when it is only his personal assumption wrapped around major infusions of sheer luck.
Further deluding you his prey and dulling consciousness, Richard Dawkins passes quickly over the fossil Archaeopteryx as being stated a hoax by Fred Hoyle. I’m not sure of if Fred Hoyle was stating it was a hoax as much as he was stating it was not a “link” to any natural selection process as Richard Dawkins is alluding to it being. Of course Richard Dawkins does not give any background to you his prey about Archaeopteryx as that would not fit in with his delusion of it being of any value to evolution.
The first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced in 1861, only two years after Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” and it became a key piece of evidence in the debate over evolution. Over the years, nine more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced. Despite variation among these fossils, most experts regard all the remains that have been discovered as belonging to a single species, though this is still debated. In fact, Archaeopteryx appears abruptly in the fossil record with masterfully engineered wings and feathers common to birds of today which gave reason to the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard and Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History, both militant evolutionists to conclude that it cannot be viewed as a transitional form. So more facts deluded by omission Richard Dawkins makes does not give cause for one’s consciousness raised unless of course one does some research for one’s self to discover the truth.
Let’s see if free standing archways Richard Dawkins mentions on page 156 to which he tributes to A. G. Carins-Smith’s book, “Seven Clues to the Origin of Life” does any consciousness arising. The mystery posed is how can a free-standing arch of rough-hewn stones and no mortar be a stable structure because if any of the stones are removed, it collapses. The question asked is, “How, then, was it built in the first place?”
Well, the answer is very simple. The designer who designed it designed it to be a free standing arch of rough-hewn stones with no mortar and then built it (or had it built) per the design using the means at hand to complete it. The design would also correlate to the means at hand to build the arch meaning that the designer would not design something which could not be built with what the designer didn’t have at hand with which to build. For example, the designer would not use a crane (we are talking now of a real crane which lifts things and not a whooping crane) if one was not on hand or known about when a scaffold system would work and was at hand to use.
Richard Dawkins has in his deluded book that “scaffolding” was used which was “removed” thus is “no longer visible.” This does seem reasonable to me as I’m sure that the designer would use scaffolding as a means to complete the project he or she designed if scaffolding was on hand so I cede to him that point. Also, why leave the scaffolding there after the arch is built thus I cede to him on this point too. I’ve seen these type archways on the Discovery and History channels. Some are very elaborate and cool looking while some of the others are just ho, hum in my opinion and none of them had the scaffolding showing. At this point it is not consciousness arising by any means.
But Richard Dawkins is deluding to answer the question posed of “How, then was it built in the first place?” as though there was no design for the arch to be built in the first place. Logically if something is built, it had some design if not only be it of the very most limited design. I’m not an architect nor carpenter nor am I any good at being more than a “hand it to someone” helper when it comes to building things but I know that the best anything can be is when someone sits down and designs it before someone just jumps in starts going at it from the design in one’s mind. In most cases of someone just going from one’s design in mind one must make changes along the way to compensate for the lack of original planning. Thus, the design is constantly being updated from trial and error as notes are taken on what worked and what didn’t work in the previous design. Without the notes being committed to memory or being written down, the design could not be improved nor would anything know that it needed to be improved or if improvements are even needed. Without notes one would not know what was already tried and what was not already tried. Darwinism natural selection cannot have notes as this would give way to design being involved within the Darwinism natural selection process. This may be a bit of a consciousness raiser to some who have not thought it through.
I’m sure that Richard Dawkins or A. G. Carins-Smith must have used the wrong word when the word “built” was used in this example. Maybe “built” should have been the word, lucky and the question posed this way, “How lucky is it that the arch doesn’t collapse?” Occurred may have been the better word used in the example instead of built. Either way however, this raises my consciousness only to make sure that I properly use correct words and phrases when I write and gives me more reason to think about Darwinism natural selection as being purely nothing but very poor science fiction. Then again I’m not perfect and may use an incorrect word at times too.
Let’s take a grand vista of Richard Dawkins’ “Mount Improbable” with its one side a sheer cliff impossible to climb and its other side a gentle slope to the summit. From which vantage point are we to look at the two sides described by Richard Dawkins? Are we to look at the sheer cliff straight on or the gentle slope straight on? What about any other vantage points? What do we see from other vantage points while looking at “Mount Improbable?” Does “Mount Improbable” have only the two sides? How wide and tall is “Mount Improbable?” Just how gradual is the gentle slope? How long does it take to ascend to the summit? Do all ascending move at the same rate of ascent? Does any descending occur? Once an “eye” is at the top, how does it get connected to say, a dog or cat if the rates of ascent are different? Scaffolding and great whooping cranes can’t make it to the top using the sheer cliff side of “Mount Improbable” even with multitudes of sheer luck? What about sky hooks, can they make it to the top using the sheer cliff side with a little luck? Would climbing gear using blocks and tackles make it to the top from the sheer cliff side with mass infusions of sheer luck? Great big whooping cranes created the whole universe per what Dawkins said so I’m sure with the right amount of luck that they could make it to the top of “Mount Improbable” from the sheer cliff side without any issues what so ever. Wow, this was really consciousness-raising, NOT!
I disagree with Richard Dawkins that half an eye is of value to save an animal’s life. The example he gave about someone having a cataract removed by having the lens of the eye cut off is not the same as saying that the eye is now only half of an eye which is remaining. Only part of the lens of the eye was removed in the example Richard Dawkins gave which does not constitute being half of the eye being removed. Here again Richard Dawkins is deluding his prey in a deceitful manner to wane them to his personal assumption. Here again Richard Dawkins is taking advantage of people who do not think for themselves.
Let’s take a very quick look at the human eye and see if one can half it and it still work. The human eye is almost round and if cut in exact half with a very sharp instrument in any way it would no longer function. Okay, that was drastic but you get the picture. The not so great little great whooping crane which can’t make it up the steep side of “Mount Improbable” even with multitudes of sheer luck, is starting to create an eye… so, would it not also need be making other parts for the eye to fit into and connect to as well or does that fall to a different whooping crane and the timing of it all coming together so to work properly? Sorry, got off track there for a moment. Anyway, this little whooping crane is creating an eye little by little over eons of time on its way up “Mount Improbable.” What happens if the eye that the little whooping crane is working on gets attacked before it can see? What evasive action could an eye make if it did see it was being attacked? Or is it lucky enough that, that doesn’t happen because the little whooping crane is supporting it with scaffolding? At what point does an eye being developed actually start to see well enough to protect an animal with its vision? It’s not when it is only 50% or even 99% developed because for example the human eye within a new born infant is fully developed yet can only focus 7 to 10 inches from their face and needs up to two months after birth to be able to control their ciliary muscles to start focusing clear images upon the retina. How does it all stay in sync without any design, by powerful infusions of sheer luck? How enlightening Darwinism evolution of eyes is, NOT!
Oh, that’s right I remember now. Only the fittest survive with Darwinism natural selection! Let’s start from the beginning. Well, let’s at least start with the only beginning that Richard Dawkins says Darwinism natural selection has which is starting at the bottom of “Mount Improbable” with the origin of the species. The little whooping crane using abiogenesis at the bottom of Mount Improbable starts mixing up various bits of things here, smidgens of stuff there, a dash of that and on and on for a few eons until sheer luck brings its concoction to be the first life! Luckily, the first life has just started living as a single cell organism at the top of “Mount Improbable.” The heat of the evening sun is overwhelmingly searing that day and the new single cell organism of new life dries up and dies. How unlucky is that? After all of those eons and using up so much luck, it dies. It’s a real bummer, huh?
I guess with Darwinism natural selection that “first life” wasn’t that lucky and didn’t make it but luckily another one started up which was more tolerant to the scorching heat, huh? How lucky is that, that there was more than one first life! Wait a moment! Something just clicked. How would the little whooping crane know to make the next new single cell more tolerant to heat? It’s not taking notes is it? If it was taking notes for use in future new single cell life improvements, wouldn’t that be it designing the next new single cell life to be better than the last? We were told that there’s no design in Darwinism natural selection. How would the little whooping crane know what needed to be done so to improve the next single cell life? In fact, how would the little whooping crane know how to do it all over again at all because if it did it would be using the template of the one which died which would mean that it Darwinism natural selection was using design yet we were told that Darwinism natural doesn’t use design? I guess that’s where massive infusions of sheer luck come in for the rescue, right?
No wait! Maybe it was thousands, even millions or trillions (or more even multiples of trillions or more) of the little whooping cranes that were all working at the same time going about abiogenesis with a dash here, a smidgen there and on and on each working their way differently up “Mount Improbable’s” gradual slope over eons and eons of time. Maybe it was an infinite amount of time… no wait, if it was an infinite amount of time or even an infinite number of efforts we would not be here because the little whooping cranes would still be at it trying to get started the first new life.
So, let’s go back to it being just eons and eons of time and a lucky number of efforts. Remember all the while none of these little whooping cranes are sharing information with the other little whooping cranes their abiogenesis goo mixtures because they want nothing to do with design nor stealing another little whooping crane’s goo mixture ingredients as they don’t want anything to do with any design patent lawsuits nor even a hint of a trace of any design in their outcome. None too were taking notes on what they were doing to insure that no design nor coping was involved. Wow, doesn’t that kind of step in the face of us all coming from the same goo? Oh, don’t think that yet as I need to not get ahead of myself like that.
So each of these sheer lucky little whooping cranes was taking a different path up the gradual slope of “Mount Improbable” so to not cross or copy each other yet to without taking any notes create an abiogenesis mixture of goo and a lucky number of them get to the top of “Mount Improbable” with a new one cell life form! We now have more than one new life single cell organism as we have whatever the lucky number is that made it to the top. What would be that lucky number of the sheer lucky ones which mixed up the same mixture of goo be? I’m sorry; I got off track and was thinking ahead again.
Anyway, we now have a lucky number of new life single cells and an unlucky number of them die due to whatever reason so we now have an even luckier number of remaining new life single cell organisms. Now before any actually got up that very gradual slope of “Mount Improbable” how many unlucky almost new life single cells did the great whooping crane abort due to them not being fit for continuing up the slope? How many did the great whooping crane abort due to them not being fit after getting to the very top of the slope and becoming a single cell organism of life? (How did the great whooping crane know to abort them? There were no notes saying which was or was not the fittest? No designs to say which was or wasn’t fit?) These unlucky numbers now leave us with the luckiest number remaining called the Multitudes of Sheer Luck New Life Single Cell Organisms where life begins at the top of “Mount Improbable” with Darwinism natural selection.
Further research into the Multitudes of Sheer Luck New Life Single Cell Organisms (MoSLNLSCOs as they soon started being called) by sheer chance found that they all had that sheer luck impossible to get special non-designer denim material added named the selfish gene. Through nothing more than the extraordinary astounding pure power of sheer luck and by far more than mere chance ever first imagined through the process of having absolutely no design or templates, with neither use of sharing information of any kind, trillions and trillions of the little whooping cranes over some eons of time had luckily created the exact same MoSLNLSCOs! By unadulterated pure chance and through intensely enhanced massive infusions of sheer luck, the great big whooping crane had aborted all but the MoSLNLSCOs with the selfish gene. Truly amazing how Darwinism natural selection works isn’t it?
Again by the great and amazing powers of innocent sheer luck, the MoSLNLSCOs with the selfish gene were named after the one who figured out just how the selfish gene by intensely enhanced massive infusions of sheer luck gave natural selection such a big lucky beginning and continuation. The name given to the MoSLNLSCOs was Dawkins Selfish Charms. This very fitting name was given because Richard Dawkins is such a great proponent to Darwinism natural selection and its sheer luck processes. I’m sure he is much honored to have MoSLNLSCOs named after him because after all, Richard Dawkins did dream them up in his own mind.
Now one must remember that there were many more trips up “Mount Improbable” than written here for the first life to begin and that it is still going on today to create and sustain life though we just can’t see it happening nor is there any evidence in any fossil records or anywhere else for that matter with the exception of being inside some highly deluded professor’s heads. Also remember that each little whooping crane used its scaffolding differently than any of the others too and the whole process went over and over and over again and again and again for a lucky number of eons until there was a new life multiple cells and then on even longer for more eons for a new life multiplen cells with natural selection and so forth till the current time!
Remember too that it takes even longer (more eons of time with more effort) to get to Dawkins Selfish Charms due to Darwinism natural selection evaluating all of those new life multiplen cells especially as the complexity and sizes increase. If there had been some design involved it would not have taken nearly as long but seeing that this is Darwinism natural selection, well it just has to keep going until it gets to where it gets luckier and luckier through eons and eons of time and effort through nothing else but the massive infusions of the amazing power of pure sheer luck with each new effort given in hopes of having improved without stalling or setbacks. The unlucky numbers of failure is immense due to no note taking and lack of design but we don’t see that in any fossil records and not even a mention of it from those highly deluded professor’s heads because after all, by sheer luck the whole Darwinism natural selection process has become so lucky it isn’t even noticed today.
And so Darwinism natural selection goes and goes and goes up “Mount Improbable” for eons of time from the lucky abiogenesis beginning goo throughout more and more eons to include those pesky Dawkins Selfish Charms then to become you and me after passing first through the zoo! Yea, right… The Mount Improbable Follies by the command of innocent chance effectively sanctioning those pesky Dawkins Selfish Charms through those detestable little limited god not so big little whooping cranes.
Wow, sounds like a really neat science fiction story there doesn’t it? Eons, and eons life just kept luckily coming to life with more and more complexity just to die by the great whooping crane’s selection for it to not be because the abiogenesis goo mixture wasn’t right for life until that sheer lucky day when that massive powerful thing called luck just infused the abiogenesis goo with such a luckily great infusion of powerful luck that through luck life just had to happen. Then after a few more eons, here we are! How does that raise your consciousness to Darwinism natural selection? For that matter, how could you and I think if we came from merely random processes as that of abiogenesis?
Hey Professor Dawkins, if by sheer luck anyone in a lab (or any other place for that matter) happens to create life, you know what that’s called? It’s called life created by design! Yes, that is correct. Lab experiments are controlled, measured and created with notes and with a special thing called cheating! Yes, cheating because there’s a template that they are aiming for in their experiments named life which exists. Here’s something else for you to think about. Computer simulations are only as powerful as to the one who programs it and any outcomes from it come from the information fed into it. The meaning of this is; Garbage in, garbage out. If one has a bias and programs the computer to their bias, guess what the results of the computer simulation will be? Yes, that’s right; the simulation’s results will be leaning towards the bias programmed into it. This was enlightening wasn’t it?
Part Four Summary
In part four we learned that after much ranting through four chapters within his deluded book, Richard Dawkins came to his main conclusion here stated in non-deluded words, that God may truly exist. We also learned through Richard Dawkins’ writing that natural selection uses “luck of the gaps” in order to work. Through luck of the gaps, natural selection uses massive infusions of sheer luck in order to do its thing without any quantitative value.
You were asked if you bet your life on the chance that luck will save you. This is the ultimate choice that you must make for yourself and you are the only one who can make this choice for yourself because it is your responsibility to make for yourself. Are you going to bet your life on luck saving you?
You learned that there are no gaps to fill with God as He has created us, all that we can see and know and has created all that we will ever see and know about in our finite understanding within our finite lifetime on earth. You learned that you cannot make someone love you. You also learned that God loves you and wants you to love Him and so He gave to you a free will to love Him if you chose to do so. You learned that God will not impede upon your free will to choose to love him or not and that he has ingeniously given to us subtle clues to his existence and the Holy Bible for us to know him. You read about two famous people who had life changing experiences which brought them to choose Jesus which they each did.
In this article you learned that life is not based on luck. You read about an event which happened to me while I was in training to get my private pilot license and of how I do not live my life on luck. You also learned of other ways that Richard Dawkins and his kind delude you with the word, arbitrary.
We went over the fact that Darwinism natural selection actually dulls one’s consciousness as we reviewed how Darwinism natural selection works through major infusions of luck and how it uses luck of the gaps to get by. In high level detail we went through the Darwinism natural selection process up “Mount Improbable” through all the lucky numbers and eons of time and efforts it takes natural selection to luckily come out with pesky Dawkins Selfish Charms defining The Mount Improbable Follies complexities of using infusions of massive amounts of major infusions of sheer luck to create and sustain life. From this we learned that it would not most likely make a good TV series even if it was luckily hooked up with scientology. You are left with this question to think about; if life came from abiogenesis randomness how can we have rational and logical thought?
Chapter Three Key Words
All definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1: a: a force that brings good fortune or adversity b: the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2: favoring chance; also: success <had great luck growing orchids>
1: a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings: luck <an outcome decided by chance> c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence: contingency
2: a situation favoring some purpose: opportunity <needed a chance to relax>
3: a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also: the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of success> b plural: the more likely indications <chances are he's already gone>
5 a: risk <not taking any chances> b: a raffle ticket
1: of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity
2: of, relating to, or involving the measurement of quantity or amount
3: based on quantity; specifically of classical verse: based on temporal quantity or duration of sounds
1: assiduous in the pursuit of learning
2: a: of, relating to, or concerned with study <studious habits> b: favorable to study <a studious environment>
3: a: diligent or earnest in intent <made a studious effort> b: marked by or suggesting purposefulness or diligence <a studious expression on his face> c: deliberately or consciously planned <studious avoidance of gender-specific pronouns>
1: something that has accumulated or has been accumulated
2: the action or process of accumulating: the state of being or having accumulated
3: increase or growth by addition especially when continuous or repeated <accumulation of interest>
: to gather or pile up especially little by little : amass <accumulate a fortune>
: to increase gradually in quantity or number
1: to form by ordering and uniting materials by gradual means into a composite whole: construct
2: to cause to be constructed
3: to develop according to a systematic plan, by a definite process, or on a particular base
4: increase, enlarge
1: to engage in building
2 a: to progress toward a peak (as of intensity) <build to a climax> b: to develop in extent <a crowd building>
: formed as to physique or bodily contours <slimly built>; especially: well or attractively formed
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan: devise, contrive
2: a: to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b: to have as a purpose: intend <she designed to excel in her studies> c: to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3: archaic: to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4: a: to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b: to draw the plans for <design a building>
1: to conceive or execute a plan
2: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
 “God in My Corner” by George Foreman
 Page 142, “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins
 Pages 375-376 “The Complete Bible Answer Book, Collectors Edition” by Hank Hanegraaff
 Page 147, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins
 Page 149, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins