Thread: Proof That Richard Dawkins Does Not Exist

In his book "The Blind Watchmaker" author Richard Dawkins described a computer program he designed to simulate evolution. He called the creatures that evolved in his virtual world biomorphs. He subsequently wrote another book entitled: "The God Delusion." The following is a parody:

Biomorph1: So you think Dawkins exists, do you! Show us your evidence!

Biomorph2: OK, if you take a good look at our virtual reality, you will see that it has a rather elegant design which I think implies a designer.

Biomorph1: That is Paley-morph rubbish! Our reality is not designed. We and everything else came into being by gradual steps consisting of random mutations and natural selection. Therefore, there is no need for a designer.

Biomorph2 But what about our natural laws? Aka: our programming instructions? Where did they come from if not from Dawkins?

Biomorph1: They've always been here. Our programming instructions are a given. No one created them. They have no intents or purposes. Besides, if you postulate that Dawkins wrote said programming instructions, then who created him? A super-Dawkins?

Biomorph2: Well, I see your point. I suppose it would be silly to suggest that Dawkins came from his mother. Hahaha! You A-Dawkinists make the best arguments.

Biomorph1: You Dawkinists always seem to need an imaginary friend or creator. If Dawkins really exists, why doesn't he just show himself to clear up the controversy once and for all?

Biomorph2: I don't know the answer to that one. It is a mystery to be sure. Maybe he feels no need to prove himself to us. He is Dawkins after all and to him we are just biomorphs produced by his computer. Although, the Holy Bioble says that profit-morphs have communicated with Dawkins.

Biomorph1: Oh enough already! Are you going to believe the rubbish you read in your Holy Bioble or are you going to embrace reason?

Biomorph2: Well, even if you're right and Dawkins does not exist, the Holy Bioble would not be entirely rubbish. It does contain some excellent wisdom that has improved my bio-life immensely and its content has given me so much joy, hope and tranquility.

Biomorph1: What a load of Dawkins bat dung! You are obviously suffering from the Dawkins delusion. You should read the book by the same name, then you will feel right as rain.

Biomorph2: Well I suppose you're right. I guess it wouldn't hurt to read "The Dawkins Delusion."

Biomorph1: That's the spirit!

Biomorph2: What's a spirit?

amusing

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

amusing

Thanks!

I admit.. I laughed.

does anyone really take dawkins serously? hes like the Jared Diamond - Al gore of athiesm.

ismaelblues wrote:

does anyone really take dawkins serously? hes like the Jared Diamond - Al gore of athiesm.

I do. It's you I don't take seriously.

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

does anyone really take dawkins serously? hes like the Jared Diamond - Al gore of athiesm.

I am a Christian and I take him seriously because I am also a scientist and even though I do not agree with him about many things he has valuable insights that make his books well worth reading. I cannot say that I was impressed with "The Selfish Gene" but I liked "Climbing Mount Improbable" and I found "Ancestors Tale" interesting if a bit speculative. I did not read the majority of the God Delusion that I concluded that I would agree with anyway, since I don't think there are valid proofs for the existence of God. But I certainly disagree with his claim that God should be considered a scientific hypothesis, for that would imply that ID and Creationism are valid scientific approaches to the question of the origin of life and the species, and that I most certainly deny.

Creationism and ID must be viewed as attacks on science itself for it is abundantly clear that the ideologues pushing this stuff do NOT WANT ANY KIND of scientific explanation for the origin of life and the species. They want theology to have exclusive domain over these questions. For ANY explanation involving God MUST be theology and NOT any kind of modern science.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But I certainly disagree with his claim that God should be considered a scientific hypothesis, for that would imply that ID and Creationism are valid scientific approaches to the question of the origin of life and the species, and that I most certainly deny.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Dawkins proposals do not afford validity at all. The claims of the Abrahamic religion are encapsulated within the proposed hypothesis:

"There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it."

Dawkins then advocates an alternative hypothesis:

"Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."