Richard Dawkins: Friend or Foe?

If there is a single modern person who draws the most ire from critics of evolution, I think it has to be Richard Dawkins. His popular science writings on evolution are pointed and powerful, and his atheism outspoken and unyielding. This makes him controversial both on scientific and philosophical grounds. And yet I quite enjoy his books. I certainly don't agree with his atheism, nor necessarily his politics, but I don't see him as a threat--I see him as a challenge. His writings make you think and introduce you to new perspectives. And sometimes I even make religious connections with his arguments.

Continue Reading

Several years ago I read his well-known book, The Blind Watchmaker. I rather liked the book and thought he made some good points. One passage in particular caught my interest. Near the end he discusses non-Darwinian conceptions of the creation of life on earth and why they fail. In response to theistic evolution--that God used evolution to create--he says:

All that we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely organized complexity. The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity. If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already have been vastly complex in the first place.

He says a similar thing in Carl Zimmer's Evolution book:

If you're allowed just to postulate something complicated enough to design a universe intelligently, then you've sold the past. You've simply allowed yourself to assume the existence of exactly the thing which we're trying to explain. The beauty of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it starts with simple things, and it builds up slowly and gradually to complex things, including things complex enough to design things--brains, in other words. If you allow yourself to use the idea of design right from the start, then you are simply giving up the beginning. You're simply not providing any kind of explanation at all.

When I read the that first passage I thought, "you know, he's got a point here." It also occured to me that Mormon theology comes closer than any other I am aware of, particularly Christian, to addressing this issue.

We don't have any final answers for the issue Dawkins raises, but we have more of a start than anyone else. Joseph Smith broke with strong tradition with his King Follet Discourse, and other similar teachings. The ideas that the elements are eternal, that God progressed to become what and who he is--these are mind expanding and daring ideas. Who else would sing a hymn asking, "Do you think that you could ever, in all eternity, find out the generation where gods began to be?" We don't know much about these issues so we don't emphasize them, but Joseph opened doors that would be unthinkable in other Christian traditions--and we are often criticised for them.

So in some ways, when I read Dawkins, I see him as a kindred spirit rather than the enemy. He is bold enough to ask big questions, and while I don't have the answers, I at least appreciate the questions.