Season 4 Podcast 144, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 3, is entitled, “Mount Improbability.”

Season 4 Podcast 144, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 3, is entitled, “Mount Improbability.” In a previous podcast I analyzed Richard Dawkins—The God Delusion—for his use of the anthropic principle as an alternative to Intelligent design (Listen to Season 4 Podcast 141, “The Fallacy of the Anthropic Principle.”). In this podcast I shall simply point out the inconsistency of Dawkins’ argument against intelligent design. I am referring to Chapter 4 of The God Delusion.  Entitled  “Why There is Almost Certainly No God.”  As often happens when one is so caught up in a cause that the ends justify the means, they swim in a whirlpool of words and ignore the maelstrom of their own misaligned logic. Since Mr. Dawkins attacks Hoyle’s famous Boing 747 argument against chance, let me introduce Mr. Fred Hoyle. The following is taken from Wikipedia Encyclopedia.According to Fred Hoyle's analysis, the probability of obtaining all of life's approximate 2000 enzymes in a random trial is about one-in-1040,000 Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.He further said:The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.This echoes his stance, reported elsewhere:Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes? Hoyle used this to argue in favor of panspermia, that the origin of life on Earth was from preexisting life in space. Mr. Dawkins’ (logically I might add) counters with: 3 LINDA“However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.”On that perceptive point, Mr. Dawkins deserves an answer. In next Wednesday’s Podcast, Number 147, I shall address the issue. The existence of God could not happen by chance. In fact, anyone who rejects chance and accepts intelligent design must disallow chance on any level of creation, even, if not especially, the existence of God.Ironically, as I shall show next week, science gives us the answer. But first let me have some fun at Mr. Dawkins’ expense. Unknowingly, in arguing against the existence of God, Mr. Dawkins builds a case for the existence of God. Unfortunately, his argument is too flawed to accept it. But here is his argument.“Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get started, and the ‘billions of planets’ anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification.”If that is true, how can Mr. Dawkins possibly argue against luck accounting for the existence of God. After all, it only had to happen once and as Mr. Dawkins adamantly claims,“The origin of life only had to happen once. We therefore can allow it to have been an extremely improbable event, many orders of magnitude more improbable than most people realize, as I shall show.”The argument is a classic non sequitur. It could be used as an excuse for the creation of anything. Let me write it another way.