Challenge to Theistic Evolution

In a debate against Alister E. McGrath, atheist Richard Dawkins made the following statement. He meant it as an argument against the existence of God, but I thought it served better as an argument against theistic evolution:  

Most respectable theologians nowadays agree that life, at least, did evolve by slow gradual incremental degrees. But they prefer to smuggle the Creator in as well, somewhat superfluously…. If natural selection and evolution is God’s way of designing life, why would He choose the one way which makes it look as if He doesn’t exist, which makes His own role completely superfluous?  

I’m certainly no fan of Richard Dawkins, but good question, don’t you think?


4 responses to this post.

  1. but a good question, don’t you think?

    Not at all. The question only makes sense if you deny God’s sovereignty over the natural world.

  2. Posted by Jim Kinnebrew on June 16, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Huh? I think it’s a very good question. Why would even a sovereign God use a method that accomodates atheistic assertions? And, since natural selection and incremental changes do not create new species now, why would He suspend that law after the initial creation?

  3. Posted by bobby grow on June 17, 2007 at 2:01 am

    Dawkins assumes that natural selection and incremental change are God, so his question is a bit rhetorical it seems ;) . . . but I see the irony of it. Good point, Matt.

  4. Posted by Scott Christensen on June 19, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Evangelicals seem to have no problem defending a supernatural God when it comes to the miracles of Jesus (at least the resurrection anyway); but somehow it is impossible to concieve of a God who created the universe is 6 solar days. That just doesn’t seem possible. Of course since modern science knows so infallibly much about the origins of the universe and since God is incapable of telling us clearly how he made it if he did, we better go with the scientists – right?.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: