Is Dawkins Secretly a Creationist?

According to this interview in Salon.com, Richard Dawkins is "the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist. He is also the world's most controversial evolutionary biologist".

To be an atheist means to fragment one's thinking process into walled off compartments. One minute the mind says atheism, the next it says creationism.  Here is an example from the Dawkins interview. 

For the atheist, religion is not simply rejected, it is also replaced with another primitive religion, such as the worship of hedonism, the worship of nature,  worship of money, power, politics, sports...  etc.

Here is the statement in the Salon Interview in which Dawkins disavows atheism. "An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one."

Be Thankful to whom? Obviously to the giver of life.  This is a recognition of the Divine Life Giver, to whom Dawkins gives thanks for the gift of life. In this statement, it is obvious that Dawkins disavows atheism and recognizes the "giver of life".

Here are other  examples of compartmentalism and disavowal of atheism in the Dawkins interview:

"But no fossils have been found in the wrong place, such as to disprove the fact of evolution." 

A recent New Scientist article entitled, Was Darwin Wrong" shows the Tree of Life was incorrect, some of the fossils or the genetic evidence actually "is in the wrong place", ruining the tree diagram and changing it into a network or bush.

"You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians."

The Pope, one of the most sophistiated theologians has said that Darwin's evolution cannot expain the evolution of the human soul.

"It leads to an infinite regression. You can't statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by saying that they must have been designed because you're still left to explain the designer, who must be, if anything, an even more statistically improbable and elegant thing. "

Here Dawkins applies anthropomorphic characterists to his definition of a divine being.  Since he has already rejected the idea of a divine being, a creator of the universe, how is it he has any knowledge to give this divine being any characteristics at all? Why should anyone accept his definition of a divine being? What are his theology credentials? He has none.

"A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection. "

Dawkins "believes" in Natural Selection as the creator of humankind.  Natural selection has been replaced by a more sophisticated mechanism called genetic engineering (James A Shapiro at the University of Chicago).  Natural Selection is a 19th century idea that nature can replace animal breeders, culling out some traits and encouraging others that lead to improved survival. This antiquated idea has never been proven as the mechanism for evolution.  Natural Selection is being replaced with new science, called Genetic Engineering.

A belief in Natural Selection is not science, it is actually a form of Animism, a primitive religion in which trees, plants and animals are worshipped as "spirits" with mysterious capabilites such as "the ability to evolve into other forms of animals". 

"A plane or a car is explained by a designer.  But man is explained by natural selection". 

This is nonsense.  Man is part of the natural world. That means the plane or car, even though made by man, was also made by nature. In other words, nature has made an intelligently designed object in the plane or car.  Why not others?  It then becomes obvious that all of nature is intelligently designed.

"There is just no evidence for the existence of God."  When Dawkins uses the term "evidence", he means scientific or objective evidence.  The evidence for the existence of God is in the subjective realm of experience, not in the scientific or objective realm.

 "So the relevance of evolutionary biology to atheism is that evolutionary biology gives us the only known mechanism whereby the illusion of design, or apparent design, could ever come into the universe anywhere." 

Here Dawkins reaffirms his "belief" in Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution.  The idea of Natural Selection has been antiquated by new science, the genetic engineering discoveries of James A Shapiro at the University of Chicago. Dawkins also makes a firm connection between his ideas on evolutionary biology and atheism.
Dawkins distorts the science of evolutionary biology to fit his atheist agenda.

"You've said that raising children in a religious tradition may even be a form of abuse."

This was a question from the journalist. To raise children without a clear concept of God the creator of the self, soul and the universe is a form of child abuse.  The very first thing I wanted for my children was for them understand that they were created by God with they were given a soul from God.

"Of course evolution isn't random. It is driven by natural selection, which is a highly non-random force."

Again Dawkins says he "believes" in a primitive religion called Natural Selection as a non-random driving force in evolution.  The idea of natural selection is an antiquated 19th century concept from animal breeding which has been replaced by new science,  Genetic Engineering of James A Shapiro at the University of Chicago.

"When you meet a scientist who calls himself or herself religious, you'll often find that that's what they mean. You often find that by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural. They mean precisely the kind of emotional response to the natural world that you've described. Einstein had it very strongly. Unfortunately, he used the word "God" to describe it, which has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. But Einstein had that feeling, I have that feeling, you'll find it in the writings of many scientists. It's a kind of quasi-religious feeling. And there are those who wish to call it religious and who therefore are annoyed when a scientist calls himself an atheist. They think, "No, you believe in this transcendental feeling, you can't be an atheist." That's a confusion of language."

This a clear example of Dawkins disavowing atheism, and admitting he has an emotional response to the natural world.  This is a recognition of the creator of the universe.  This shows that Dawkins is secretly, a creationist, while trying to deny it at the same time.  This is a perfect example of compartmentalism.

"So yes, I think it well may be that we're living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed."

Amazingly, Dawkins admits that his arch enemy, "intelligent design", is correct !!  Another example of compartmentalism.

Links and References:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html

The atheist.  Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages. By Gordy Slack

 http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index.html

JAMES A. SHAPIRO
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Chicago
Gordon Center for Integrative Science W123B
929 E. 57th Street, Chicago, Ill. 60637

http://www.beliefnet.com/Holistic-Living/2007/02/Debunking-The-God-Delusion-Part-1.aspx
Debunking 'The God Delusion,' Part 1 ,  In this six-part series, Deepak Chopra exposes what he considers the illusion of Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
The God Delusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Dawkins is an atheist,[5][6][7] secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[8] and supporter of the Brights movement.[9] He has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[10][11] by analogy with English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of natural selection. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief.[12] As

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion
The Dawkins Delusion?, subtitled Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine is a book by Christian theologian Alister McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response from a Christian perspective to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

http://www.elegansfusion.org/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
 
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.  The genetic code used to translate codons into amino acids is universal.
 This balance between expressiveness and simplicity yielded a codewith 3 bases, optimal in encoding 20 amino-acids.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000812/00/millstein_roberta.pdf

HOW NOT TO ARGUE FOR THE INDETERMINISM OF EVOLUTION:
A LOOK AT TWO RECENT ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE ISSUE
ROBERTA L. MILLSTEIN
Department of Philosophy
California State University, Hayward
25800 Carlos Bee Blvd.
Hayward, CA 94542 USA

http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/millstein/papers/Millstein_agnosticism.pdf

Is the Evolutionary Process Deterministic or Indeterministic?
An Argument for Agnosticism  Roberta L. Millstein
Department of Philosophy California State University, Hayward

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Poll: Majority Reject Evolution
51 Percent Believe God Created Humans
NEW YORK, Oct. 23, 2005 | by Sean Alfano

http://twochannelstation.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/
on January 28, 2009 at 5:04 am  Clark Bunch
I haven’t read The God Delusion, although I probably should. If millions of atheists have read it, so should I, if for no other reason than that. My comments/opinion would be more relevant only then. It looks like you’ve done quite a job here.

I wrote last summer, in light of Ben Stein’s movie, that science cannot be used to either prove or disprove God. Atheists have a point that his existence cannot be proven. I agree. But atheists also have a problem explaining that the universe does in fact exist, from a scientific standpoint. Something that exists cannot come from nothing; that’s the law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. So, if God did not create the universe, and it cannot simply appear from nothing, the logical conclusion based on our scientific reasoning, would be that the universe does not exist. Thus the theist and the atheist both believe in things that cannot be proven. Meaning the atheist must believe the universe came into being with there being a god, which defies logic and reason. Both positions require a certain amount of faith; yet the atheist calls the faith of theists unreasonable, illogical, unscientific, etc. When he’s in the same boat.

I find God creating the universe more plausible than the universe suddenly popping into existence for no reason whatsoever. But that view is unscientific, so what do I know?

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/01/book-review-god-delusion-by-richard.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/Holistic-Living/2007/02/Debunking-The-God-Delusion-Part-1.aspx Depak Chopra MD

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm

Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Why have some of our genes evolved rapidly? It is widely believed that Darwinian natural selection is responsible, but research led by a group at Uppsala University, suggests that a separate neutral (nonadaptive) process has made a significant contribution to human evolution.