Darwin, Design and Dawkins’ Dilemma
- David H. Glass
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Richard Dawkins has a dilemma when it comes to design arguments. On the one hand, he maintains that it was Darwin who killed off design and so implies that his rejection of design depends upon the findings of modern science. On the other hand, he follows Hume when he claims that appealing to a designer does not explain anything and so implies that rejection of design need not be based on the findings of modern science. These contrasting approaches lead to the following dilemma: if he claims that Darwinism is necessary for rejecting design, he has no satisfactory response to design arguments based on the order in the laws of physics or the fine-tuning of the physical constants; alternatively, if Humean arguments are doing most of the work, this would undermine one of his main contentions, that atheism is justified by science and especially by evolution. In any case, his Humean arguments do not provide a more secure basis for his atheism because they are seriously flawed. A particular problem is that his argument for the improbability of theism rests on a highly questionable application of probability theory since, even if it were sound, it would only establish that the prior probability of God’s existence is low, a conclusion which is compatible with the posterior probability of God’s existence being high.
- Collins, R. (2007). The multiverse hypothesis: A theistic perspective. In B. Carr (Ed.), Universe or multiverse? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin Books.
- Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. London: Bantam Press.
- Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. London: Penguin Books.
- Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Viking.
- Earman, J. (2000). Hume’s abject failure: The argument against miracles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ganssle, G. (2008). Dawkins’s best argument: the case against God in The God delusion. Philosophia Christi, 10, 39–56.
- Glass D. H. (2011). Can evidence for design be explained away? In V. Harrison and J. Chandler (eds.) Probability in the philosophy of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.
- Hume D. (1779). Dialogues concerning natural religion. H. Aiken (ed.) New York: Hafner Library of Classics, 1948.
- Richmond, P. (2007). Richard Dawkins’ Darwinian objection to unexplained complexity in God. Science and Christian Belief, 19, 99–116.
- Sober, E. (2004). The design argument. In W. Mann (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to the philosophy of religion. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Van Inwagen, P. (1993). Metaphysics. Boulder: Westview Press.
- Ward, K. (2008). Why there almost certainly is a God. Oxford: Lion Hudson.
- Wielenberg, E. (2009). Dawkins’s gambit, Hume’s aroma, and God’s simplicity. Philosophia Christi, 11, 113–128.
- Darwin, Design and Dawkins’ Dilemma
Volume 51, Issue 1 , pp 31-57
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Design argument
- David H. Glass (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim, BT37 0QB, UK