Chapter 13: Paley Was Right

In response to Dawkins' argument against Paley, D'Souza examines what it would actually mean if evolution was true. He starts by pointing out that Darwin's original argument for evolution was not completely supported by the current science of the day. Sir Kelvin's predictions about the age of the earth did not give enough time for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons many people opposed it. As additional knowledge has been gained, it appears, to D'Souza, that evolution is a sound theory. However, even if evolution is true there is no reason it needs to be seen as conflicting with Christianity. D'Souza cites Genesis to indicate that God breathed spirit into the dust of the earth to create man, making him a unique creature. He says that evolution is likely the mechanism used to bring about life.

Given that evolution is not a problem for Christianity, why do so many people think it is? D'Souza states that there is Darwinism which has profound political and philosophical implications. It says that we should promote survival of the fittest in the form of eugenics, that consciousness and reason are cognitive illusions (according to Dennett), and that life is without purpose.

Counterpoised, D'Souza is quick to point out that evolution by itself does not say these things are true. First off, it does not imply that a morality, it simply uses a natural selection mechanism, consciousness and reason could have come from another source, such as God, and it says nothing about life having purpose. Lastly, you evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, because you can not select from immaterial things. You need the first cell, which is vastly more complex than was once thought. Only by attaching atheism to evolution and birthing Darwinism do you create these implications. To conclude the chapter, a response to Dawkins' argument that evolution solves Paley's problem of complexity is presented. Namely, that is you explain that the complex watch was created by a watch factory, but fail to explain the even more complex factory, you have failed to defeat Paley's initial argument.