The Dawkins Deficiency
Firstly, this is NOT a religious book. There is no argument for God, Creationism, or Intelligent Design. I contend with Dawkins' arguments from an evidentiary perspective - on logic, validity, and relevance.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins set out his evidence claiming that evolution was a fact and that his book would demonstrate it. He assured the reader that he offered proof beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any ever used.
However, I show that Dawkins' science is often faulty with essential proof points ignored, and that his argument style suffers from the same logical fallacies of which he accuses others. This book points out how much of Dawkins' case is based on a materialistic philosophy rather than scientific fact.
If evolution theory has been proven, then it is reasonable to ask:
"What specifically has been proven, and what is the evidence?"
Dawkins does not define what he is attempting to prove, so I have used the definition given by the General Theory of Evolution - that all life on Earth arose from a single common ancestor, which itself arose from an inorganic form. I measure Dawkins' evidence against that definition and demonstrate that he is often in error, and when he does get it right, the evidence he offers does not prove the case for GTE.
Who should read this book?
This book is suitable for anyone from high school onward. The scientific discussions are not overly deep, and the logic reasonably simple. In essence, if two evolution believing scientists, equally qualified in biology and genetics, disagree on whether some process is even possible, it is illogical to argue that the case of either side has been proven. When a Professor of Evolutionary Biology remarks: "It is important to ask, though, whether true evolutionary novelties actually arise by mutation. For example, can both a new enzyme and the regulatory system that modulates its production arise by mutation?" and is unable to answer his own question in the affirmative, I would contend that in his mind at least, the case for evolution is not proven. This book provides numerous examples of where evolutionists express doubt, and where genetists demonstrate that evolution as envisaged by Charles Darwin is not biologically possible. Later chapters question whether evolution can explain the numerous non-material aspects of human existence, and show where some evolutionists even assert processes which are actually contrary to the case they are trying to make.
As Dr. Johnson Philip wrote: "Everyone is looking for scientific evidence for evolution. Those who favour evolution wish to see it established, and those who do not, wish to test if their stand is right. Both sides will find this book useful because it shows purely on a logical basis, that Dawkins’ arguments are false, and that he has completely failed to prove his thesis logically or scientifically."
I should make it clear that in this book, I have no criticism of Richard Dawkins personally - my goal was to focus on the evidence presented in his book. My original title for the book was Not Guilty Your Honour, as I sought to treat my review like a trial, evaluting the evidence for evolution to determine whether it was true that Dawkins had indeed proven his case beyond reasonable doubt. I concluded that he had not. However, the publisher wisely advised that my original title would not sell, and we should have a more eye-catching title, which I am sure we have.
