The Blind Atheist is a book for the open minded skeptic. If you are an atheist or agnostic that prefers proof to faith then you may want to explore the scientific evidence contained in the book. Exposing ideas that chaos theory and self organization are viable alternatives to intelligent design as mere wishful thinking, the facts presented within the pages of The Blind Atheist make clear that theism is the default position and not atheism.
DNA, the RNA world, the genetic code, and so called junk DNA is explored in the book along with the assertions of Richard Dawkins and other notable atheists. The information based machinery of life cannot come into existence without intelligent input at some point.
The Blind Atheist shows why the intelligent input is necessary for even the most primitive nasent life form that may be postulated to come into existence, and why alternative scenarios that exclude intelligent intervention are absurd. The main assertions made in the book can be either confirmed or disproved by scientific means without appeal to a supernatural source. The reader will find that modern atheism is based on a speculative myth.
The process of evolution is discussed in the book but only as it pertains to the origin of life and the gathering of information. The book is a must read response to Richard DawkinsĂ˘â‚¬â„˘ book; The Blind Watchmaker. His famous biomorphs become fallen branches and his widely hailed Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“me thinks it is like a weaselĂ˘â‚¬Âť experiment becomes an exercise in intelligent design as the flaws are exposed in The Blind Atheist.
A short book that deals with the root, The Blind Atheist nevertheless provides the material that can be used to upset several present day scientific assumptions. Once the foundation is destroyed then the entire building collapses. The Blind Atheist does however leave the reader with some hope. The hope is that educators who read this book will return to a fact based scientific foundation without the need to interject the myths of atheism into scientific curriculum.
The Following Excerpted from The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism by Raymond F. Hendrix. Copyright Ă‚Â© 2003. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. From the chapter, Intelligent Intervention:
…In his later programs he, the creator [Richard Dawkins], added more lines of symmetry and thereby was able to Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“createĂ˘â‚¬Âť various things that looked like snowflakes. Of course we already know how snowflakes and naturally forming crystals come about in nature so we should not be surprised that Richard Dawkins was able to simulate those laws of nature. Take away the artificially created symmetry and we are left with an interesting simulation of exactly what he programmed into the machine. He, the creator, also programmed into the experiment the ability to branch off from a single line. This is necessary because he, the creator, knew that trees branch off that way. Should it really come as any surprise then that some of his biomorphs looked like trees?
They would of course look nothing like trees even with the branching mechanism if he did not program in the symmetry function. His trees would look more like fallen branches but I donĂ˘â‚¬â„˘t think that would be as impressive to the unwary reader. He also programmed in segmentation because he, the creator, knew that segmentation was a part of nature. How the blind watchmaker knew that is unknown, but the seeing watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, did know, so he programmed that into the natural selection experiment himself.
Now, letĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s ignore all of the above and pretend that everything was done the way it should have been and these creatures magically appeared on the computer screen. What has he proved? Is this even remotely similar to the intricate and complicated mechanism contained in a living organism? Richard Dawkins created a program that draws abstract pictures much as a cloud will form itself into a familiar looking object from time to time. He proved absolutely nothing in regard to natural selection and how it operates in natureĂ˘â‚¬Â¦
…We are talking here about the laws of thermodynamics controlling the socalled Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“replicationĂ˘â‚¬Âť of still lifeless macromolecules. How do those laws cause one molecule to be selected over another based upon the specific information content of one over the other (especially when we consider that the theorized nascent life must select this information with foreknowledge of the code and yet to be determined translation mechanism)? Mindless molecules are attracted and formed according to the laws of physics with regard to atomic structure. There is no consideration of specified, coded information content at all, is there? And there is no information in them to begin with, is there?
Again we are left with the necessity of value judgments. So the program itself is flawed if it assumes natural selection to be in effect when there is no existing advantage to work from. The entire experiment is directed from beginning to end by the intelligent input of Richard Dawkins. It neither confirms abiogenesis or natural selection and it certainly does not eliminate the need for intelligent intervention. It is useless without the assumption of foreknowledge. Everything was perfectly prepared to prove that nobody needed to prepare anything in order for life to form and evolve from lifeless matterĂ˘â‚¬Â¦