@article{ART001622264},
author={Jongkyunn Park},
title={A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism},
journal={The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics},
issn={1229-8387},
year={2011},
number={22},
pages={103-133}
TY - JOUR
AU - Jongkyunn Park
TI - A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism
JO - The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics
PY - 2011
VL - null
IS - 22
PB - The Society Of Korean Christian Social Ethics
SP - 103
EP - 133
SN - 1229-8387
AB - The design argument is simply put as follows: 1. Some things are very complicated. They contain many parts which fit and work together in an orderly and regular manner to achieve their end. 2. This complexity is evidence of design - the parts could not have come together in this way by chance - they must have been put together deliberately to achieve their purpose. 3. Where there is evidence of design, there must be a designer. In the case of a watch, this is the watchmaker. 4. The universe shows evidence of design. Nature has many complicated parts which work together to achieve their end (e.g. the eye, the pollination of flowers by bees, the orbits of the planets, the conditions of the Big Bang). They could not have come together in this way by chance. 5. If the universe shows evidence of design, then it must have a designer. Therefore God exists.
But Dawkins claims that Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It is improbable that organised complexity should exist unexplained. Atheistic Darwinism is able to explain how organised complexity arises from simple, physical ultimates. God is useless as an explanation of organised complexity since he must have organised complexity and God's organised complexity would exist unexplained. So, God is both unnecessary and useless as an explanation of organised complexity and improbable in his own right. There is certainly no God.
McGrath criticizes Dawkins' claims as follows: Darwinism does not explain everything. and no explanation of God's complexity is needed. God is not complex, but simple. From this, Swinburne argues that God hypothesis is very simple and requires few complicating assumptions that invite further explanation.
Finally this paper argues that God's knowledge of the world can be explained in terms of his irreducible ability to choose among alternatives based on their value need not be organised improbable.
KW - design argument;Dawkins;Darwinism;McGrath;Swinburne;irreducible complexity
DO -
UR -
ER -
Jongkyunn Park. (2011). A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, 22, 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. 2011, "A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism", The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, no.22, pp.103-133.
Jongkyunn Park "A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics 22 pp.103-133 (2011) : 103.
Jongkyunn Park. A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism. 2011; 22 : 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. "A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics no.22(2011) : 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics, 22, 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism. The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics. 2011; 22 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism. 2011; 22 : 103-133.
Jongkyunn Park. "A theistic Response against Dawkins' Scientific Atheism" The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics no.22(2011) : 103-133.
