It’s no accident that we see stars in the sky, says famed Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins: they are a vital part of any universe capable of generating us. But, as Dawkins emphasizes, that does not mean that stars exists in order to make us.
“It is just that without stars there would be no atoms heavier than lithium in the periodic table,” Dawkins wrote in The Ancestors Tale -A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, “and a chemistry of only three elements is too impoverished to support life. Seeing is the kind of activity that can go on only in the kind of universe where what you see is stars.”
“It’s an astonishing stroke of luck that we are here. Every animal owes its existence to an astonishing list of contingencies that might not have happened. With so much chance and luck it might be thought that evolution itself is a process of pure chance, but nothing could be further from the truth.”
It was predictable, for example, that eyes and ears would develop in different species, and they had done so independently several times over, Dawkins said. “Natural selection is the great engine of the predictable side of life, but it cannot start without certain prerequisites.” Dawkins has said it was his gut feeling that there been another stroke of luck that would have developed life elsewhere in the universe. ”There are billions and billions of planets out there, so there could be millions of planets that have life on them, but the origin of life could still be a staggeringly good stroke of luck,” he said.
via Richard Dawkins: “On Life in the Universe”
“On Life in the Universe”
By Richard Dawkins, January 26, 2012
Richard Dawkins is the classic theorist of evolution of life on Earth and the Universe. He always starts from the premise that Darvinve life arose by chance and not by the will of a creative being calledGod. Here’s the evidence for this:
Dawkins says: „ It’s an astonishing stroke of luck that we are here. Every animal owes its existence to an astonishing list of contingencies that might not have happened. With so much chance and luck it might be thought that evolution itself is a process of pure chance, but nothing could be further from the truth.”
„ There are billions and billions of planets out there, so there could be millions of planets that have life on them, but the origin of life could still be a staggeringly good stroke of luck,” he said.
To Richard Dawkins „ … in God is like believing in a teapot orbiting Mars. „
Here it is some coments :
ged says : he concept of a Supreme Being, whose pleasure / displeasure could influence how life treated us, was a thought that gradually evolved over time.
smartypants says : I like Dawkins’ discussions on evolution; we can learn something from his knowledge of the subject. I do wish, tho, that he would stop his constant insertions about believing in an Intelligence responsible for our reality. Evolution is no doubt true, but it is no reason to form conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, for the simple reason that none of us understand the true nature of our reality. Some scientists believe we exist in a program or simulation. Others talk about a holographic projection. Any of these possibilities suggest Intelligence, a Programmer if you will. And, of course, we may exist in something we can’t imagine.
Personally I think Dawkins should stay out of the God business and stick to enlightening us about evolution. Incidentally, I believe it was Bertrand Russell’s idea about the referenced ‘tea pot’, and he also said that we can never know one way or another.
Allan W Janssen says: I find it interesting that we are on a great round ball, smack dab in the middle of Zero and Infinity, not knowing who we are, where we came from, why we are here, and where we’re going from here, if anywhere, giving rapt attention to the imaginings of those who appear to be relatively more intelligent than we are, yet are absolutely as equally ignorant as we are, since none of us can truthfully answer the eternal questions.
Steve Savage says: Thinking about Creation is a mind-stretching exercise… Stretch your mind more by viewing this presentation … http://www.slideshare.net/creationary/bible-genesis-creation-account
Carl Frederick says: Interesting article and comments. I accept both evolution and God, with no qualms. Dawkins is a giant in his field of science, but knows so very little about religion and his comments against religion show this.
I just think that taking a purely scientific stance on human existence, one misses out on a much richer picture which helps us understand the science and apply it in ethically and morally responsible ways.
Peter Kinnon says: I find it incredible that today (2012) we are still debating the issue of religion and science and who/what/how the universe was created. Just look at some of the major religions, each one in its time has „ borrowed „ stories from each other to create their own so called reality, even Christianity. „ Jesus „ was known as many other ‘sons of gods’ thousands of years before the bible was written.
Elaine says: Thinking is great, thinking with an open mind is better. The human race does not have the knowledge base to prove conclusion to a creator or life starting spontaneously from non-life. One side claiming the other is wrong is nothing more than guaranteed flawed opinion based on an incomplete measuring stick of collected arguments biased to the preconceived conclusion.
SixnaHalfFeet sayss:Also, the more I study science, and the more I study religion, the more I realize that there is much more to learn from each.
I suggest to all from Dawkins to commentators to try to start thinking like this:
Let’s start talking about the attributes of God are known, and not on the various ideas about the unknown god.
Then write the attributes of man in Biblical times and today.
Then compare the attributes of God and man, but only their attributes that are real and known.
And what we get?
We get a similarities!
The evolutionary time of 2,000 years, from Jesus to date – 2012. years – to a scientist who creates nano structure, creates atoms of matter and moleklule, modifying the molecular structure of living beings, and creating new creatures, and what it is absolutely unsinkable in the context Dawkins and commentators, that the destructive power of Biblical Jericho trumpet sound , the God’s power for the destruction of Jericho walls today is powers in the hands of a man from Nikola Tesla and HAARP and to my observation that it is one and the same force -God’s and man’s. Who wont to see more let vist my web site Ishodiste. Com and see the article: „ A MIRACLE IS HAPPENED – You are becoming a Galactic Human “.
When Dawkins and many others are saying about evolution always talk about the evolution of species, almost never on the evolution of man and mankind? To a man and mankind evolved past 2000th years of Jesus until today would have to be clear to everyone, but we almost never talk about the evolution of creation by man, such as weapons and tools of transport vehicles, machinery, houses, cities, states, medicine, hospitals, education, electronic and computer systems etc.
When we began to talk about it we will realize that the man and the humanity as the object of evolution became her subject, which is quite something else than what is Dawkins story.
Many people including me, seeing and talking about us as a builder of the a new gigantic human being – mankind, I call Homoteras. In this particular being of manikind or Homoteras we are cells of them such ours cells in building being us. This new great world and space being has all the attributes of God defined in the Bible and people must see as a human attributes.
In the same context, people must see that everything is moving toward to their origin. Religion is said that a man moving from God to God, while science has to say to the man and manikind that moving from its Origins to its origin.
The essence of the message is that science realized that what religion is anticipated. If religion says that the way of man is from God to God, science has to say that the path of Man and manikind is from the Origin to the origin.
First is religious beliefs, while other is scientific knowledge by saying the same thing. That is the complementarity of religion and science, which should be the main theme of modern man.