Dawkins Wins By Default

Albert Mohler's Blog discusses an article from the London Times believing Richard Dawkins as the most brilliant scientist alive. I just love how Creationists are constantly berated and mischaracterized by the morally neutral and objective journalists. This quote offers one example.

Dawkins says that natural selection is “the most important idea to occur to the human mind”, the slow change of species over millions of ideas disproving the religious theory of intelligent design by God.

Last I checked, natural selection of obvious to everyone. I don't know of any Biblical Creationist who denies natural selection. One well known example is the white moths disappearing during the industrial era. Soot from the smoke stacks covered the trees and exposed the white moths. The birds ate them and they were soon extinct. Black moths evolved due to the environment's change. But wait! Soon the era of black soot ended and the black moths were seen by those pesky enemies and white moths began to evolve while the black ones became extinct. (Carl Wieland blows this evolved moth idea out of the water. Read here.)

Of course I am being fecicious in using the term "evolved". The problem is equivocating terms by Dawkins. Notice that natural selection is assumed to be the cause of "slow change of species over millions of years". How do we know this? Worse yet, why should the term natural selection be defined as actually meaning micro evolution to macro evolution? We are not told. As the article goes on to say:

“It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant.

As one evolutionist once quipped to a Creationist in a debate, "we know evolution is true because we are here!" That is not demonstrating one's position. That is not open-mindedness. That is might makes right.

Any sharp Creationists could easily destroy Dawkins in debate. Dawkins does not believe he needs to justify his presuppositions, but with modern science and modern politics and modern academia, he doesn't have to.