Ben Carson vs Richard Dawkins Debate Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y

in this video Dawkins makes the case that the issue of the existence of God is in fact a valid question for science because it has direct implications for reality, the nature of how things came into being and what sustains them etc.

He observes that evolutionism is totally inconsistent with a belief in a Creator - a Designer - the God of the Bible included.

What you have on this panel is 3 evolutionists arguing against one creationist.

Dawkins argues that Darwin's story telling explains every step and that every step is fully understood. This is obviously a "by faith alone" assertion on Dawkins' part since we all know that Darwin imagined a single cell to be filled with a mere jelly-like simple "protoplasm" and not much else.

Dawkins' argument begins with the idea that as a world renowned Neurosurgeon Dr Carson must believe in evolution so any argument that Carson comes up with about the failure of cell biology alone to explain the complexity of the human brain - must then be explained by Dr. Carson with some sort of "story" about how humans obtained that feature via an evolutionary process. The circular argument in Dawkins' method is hard to ignore.

At about the 27 minute point in the video Dawkins again excels in his quest for a string of circular arguments when he points out that no matter the number of times evolutionism is pointed to as being something that is impossible, extremely unlikely to have occurred on its own by chance, in a mindless undirected fashion - that God Himself is also unlikely to have evolved out of nothing.

AS if the fact that we cannot imagine or storytell a way that God evolved from nothing out of a mindless undirected process (i.e. use the evolution solution on God) is proving something against religion or in favor of evolution.

When they get to the question of how evolutionism explains moral behavior given the Darwinian model for death and competition - the atheist argument is little more than something of the form "well we do see moral people that are atheist and evolutionist so it must work even though it is counter intuitive in the Darwinian model". Dawkins' answer: "we use contraceptives and they are counter to the Darwinian model so somehow the Darwinian model gives this result for humans".

The model is used to explain every result no matter how counter intuitive to the model -- again.

Another "We are here so evolutionism must be able to do this" circular argument in a string of them.

One sticking point where Dawkins seems to come to a dead stop is when at around 38 minutes the point was made that his "God delusion" appeal to atheism was arrogance not science or logic given that fact that his sphere of knowledge is so tiny as compared to all the knowledge in the universe and so he could not possibly know that in the vast area of knowledge outside of his tiny sphere - there was proof that God does exist.

Dawkins' only retort was that the area outside of his knowledge that God does exist - would most certainly not include the knowledge that the God of the Bible exists.

in Christ,

Bob