Home » Uncategorized » Richard Dawkins – The Braindead Watchmaker of Nil

Richard Dawkins – The Braindead Watchmaker of Nil

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

The “modern” evangelical religion of hero-worship and empiricist absolutism known as New Atheism deserves every attack their godfathers receive.  They must be the worst atheism has to offer, bowing down to the Maniae.  To quote the Sir Head-in-his-arse “Royal” Society Fellow Richard Dawkins’ recent Tweet:

“Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today,”

My response, Mr. Dawkins:  the “New Atheist” [not new to Muslims], Taliban, Tea Party, and Neo-cons are all feathers on the same flying pig – bigoted, irrational dogmatism.  Personally, I would say that corruption, selfishness, and extreme stupidity are the greatest forces of evil today !

Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Biology – all posit that the universe and whatever it contains make sense, and that sense could possibly become human thought, if examined carefully and honestly.

The Dawkins brain doesn’t work that way however.  Here are some of the ludicrous notions with which he has awarded himself:

  1. Genes build beaver dams- according to  what he concludes in The Extended Phenotype.  Dawkins is worse than Descartes in his ability to reduce living creatures to programmed robots.  
  2. All acts of love, self-sacrifice, showing preference to others, and the like boil down to a gene’s selfish need for survival.  [The Selfish Gene ]  How’s that for intelligence?

So, has science become the field of confounding humans who would otherwise be intelligent in its absence?  What science is this? Has the science that sprang from Islamic history been killed by the modern materialist, or will science revive once the “New Atheists” become extinct?   In the realm of infinite possibilities, the only possibility I will promote is the Religion I made for myself by eliminating all possibilities except the few facts I’m able to observe in my narrow field of studies, buried between theories that can’t be qualified, and causes that can’t actually be observed !  That is NOT science.  It’s DOGMA that has no basis in reality, the RELIGION of the Liar.  There are 8-year-old children now calling themselves “atheist” !  An 8-year-old will only adopt such a label if he/she has been INDOCTRINATED with the most coarse bigotry.

My own arguments:

1)  Since, according to Dawkins, all motivation is a result of the “need” to “preserve the species”, which cognitive organism goes through life thinking of the preservation of its species? Can it be proven that any thinking creature is planning and working for the preservation of its kind ?

2)  “The Species”[humans] will come to an end !  This is believed by the monotheistic Muslim and Jew, the trinitarian Christian, and the environmentalist who may be theist or atheist.  As a Muslim(believing the world will end by the Destruction of the Almighty), I do what I can for the environment and my neighbor, whatever their beliefs are.  My religion teaches me that responsibility.  I mourn the destruction of humanity by existing strife, and fear the days of the Final Strife.  I DON’T do these things believing it will preserve my “species”.

3)  The discussion of evolution, not outright denied by all faiths, never arrives at the Primal Cause.  All that has been shown by genetics is a means of transmitting similarity, and a tool for replicating proteins.  Then the occasional accident happens, and a species is strengthened.  Wow!  THAT REALLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN, DOESN’T IT?  The solution the atheist needs is found in the meanings of Allah’s names:  al-Khalik(The Maker), al-Bari (The Originator), al-Musawir (The Shaper), al-Badi’ (The Innovator).  There are over 95 other Names of God, if Dawkins cares to study them.

4)  Having discussed the possibility [not proof] that evolution could lead to the branching of species, what is the argument for the origin of the universe?  I always understood the watchmaker analogy in terms of universal complexity, whereas Dawkins only applies it to zoology. (I have a section on this below.)

5)  Between proof of possibility for an explanation other than Creation, and Proof of Absolute Denial of the possibility of Creation is a huge leap !  What is the logical path of this leap ?

6)  The clarity of Water:  From the realm of infinite possibilities, how is it that the liquid upon which all life-forms depend happens to be PURE in all ways of description?  It is clear, flavorless, colorless, odorless, and can flow or form  to any shape, and be carried in any container!  It can even be evaporated, heaped-up into a pile of clouds, driven by wind to a dry land, and burst open to quench the denizens of earth !  HOW CAN ONE BE SO BLIND OR ARROGANT TO DENY SUCH OBVIOUS ARTISTRY IN NATURE?   And until Dawkins’ precious materialism and selfish social-Darwinism became the de-facto religion of Western society, there was plenty of fresh water for everyone.

7)  The nature of Soil:  Soil is AMAZING !  It is also purifying, meaning it sheds and filters contaminants and resists any permanent corruption of bacterial organisms or animal waste.  It is strong enough to build a house upon, yet soft enough to plant a mustard seed.  From the realm of infinite possibilities, do we have this by ACCIDENT?

8)  The Horse’s Back:  From the realm of infinite possibilities, there is a noble wild animal intelligent enough to be trained, docile enough to be tamed, aggressive enough to be one of the fastest short-distance creatures on earth, bold enough to be ridden into battle, happens to have been one of the most significant means of change in world history, and it fits right between the thighs of the human being !  According to Dawkins, this would be by the accidents of the “blind watchmaker” of evolution.  And we inferior homo-sapiens are all suffering a “God Delusion” !

9)  The value of 0 is nothing.  Textually, it’s just a placeholder the Muslims donated to the West in the 12th Century.  All other numbers can only be derived from the value of 1.  In the mathematical universe, 1 is the only number that exists of its own value.  Without 1, nothing else is feasible.

10)  His final conclusion on his alternate theory of the origins of complexity ends in The Grand Fallacy where his intelligence proves its utter limit.  He says;

 “a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution … must already have been vastly complex in the first place …”

This one leaves me in utterly staggered !  He arrives at the very proof of the Eternal, all-Knowing, uncreated Creator, knocks on the door, then says “I don’t like You.” !!!  Why?  Because he’s too disingenuous or arrogant to take the next logical step and say; “Yes, He IS The Originator, Without Limit to His Powers, the Absolute Necessity of Whom, I [Richard Dawkin] just proved by my own statement” !   His weak mind can’t conceptualize that which goes beyond the limits of time and space.  That anything should exist outside the laws of our universe is beyond his fathom.  So, rather than admitting to its possibility, much less its necessity, he would rather praise himself for proving his preferred religion of shortfalls as a viable alternative, and abscond the discussion there !

Oxford University used to house geniuses.  Now, look what’s happened to it !  Coming from someone who spent his life in a lab-coat, how could his venture into the world of theology and philosophy be deemed anything other than PROPAGANDA ?  It’s an absurdity that his rants on theism ever get published in any form.

To continue my discussion on universal complexity, and the Cause of causes, I just ask the reader to follow a simple experiment.  I’m drawing a shape on the page here:


What are the possibilities of the origins of this red circle?

  1. We actually don’t know it’s real.  It could be a delusion.  In which case, shoot yourself in the head.  I’m sure the bullet won’t be any more real.
  2. It always existed by itself.  WRONG !  In the realm of infinite possibilities, that a single finite thing exists, floating alone in the sea of nothingness is a mathematical impossibility.
  3. It always existed along-side an infinite number of other things, but without a selector involved.  WRONG !  In the realm of infinite possibilities, the probability that any one occurrence would happen within the sequence without a selector involved infinitely approaches ZERO.
  4. It sprang from nothingness all on its own.  LET’S STAY IN THE RATIONAL WORLD, EH?  Nothing would only ever beget nothing.
  5. It was selected for Existence by a Selector.  That Selector has the full Knowledge of the Realm of Unlimited Possibilities, the Will to Select, and the Power to Enact whatever It Selects.

Now, for the likes of Dawkins, I doubt if this age-old proof set forth by Ghazali 1100 years ago would work.  He’s already demonstrated his real problem:  He can’t maintain rationality when confronted with the mere POSSIBILITY of God-like Intelligence.  He’s already knocked on the Door of The Unlimited repeatedly and said “I despise You, because you Create beautifully, demonstrate generous variety, and show Intelligence in what You do”.

The Originator says in The Qur’an:

 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.

‘Nuf said ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: