The lectures were introduced by recalling the way Faraday sought to develop a sense of wonder into his audience as they considered this complex and mysterious world. Dawkins sought to do the same - with one major difference. Whereas Faraday was concerned to present the world as God's handiwork, Dawkins disassociated himself from all ideas of this universe being created. Faraday's sense of wonder was personal; Dawkins' is impersonal.
We can go further in the comparison: Faraday's science was founded on Christian principles whereas Dawkins has no place for God's revelation in his view of science, origins, life and purpose. Faraday believed in Christ as the creator and upholder of his creation, giving unity and meaning to everything. He saw the physical laws as operating for our good, for which we are right to give thanks to God. Man was given dominion over the creatures and, as a steward, he was to tend and care for the domain which had been entrusted to him. By contrast, Dawkins omitted to refer to the Biblical teaching on stewardship, caring and tending. He challenged the idea that man has any `dominion' over the created world, and argued that we must grow-up, forsake these outdated views, and accept that nothing exists for man.
Dawkins' lectures traversed ground covered by his popular books: The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Darwinist thinking was prominent. He spoke of creation only to reject it as unscientific. How would Faraday have responded to him? In his life, Faraday chose not to be a controversialist - he was not interested in the clash of minds in heated debate. When he was involved in matters where scientists differ, he promoted the strategy of investigating the problem and finding ways of testing the contrary ideas. In the spirit of Faraday, we are entitled to ask, what evidences or tests were brought forth by Dawkins to prove his case?
It must be said that many of the biological facts presented in the lectures are the common property of creationists and Darwinists. Such evidences require interpretation, and it is at this deeper level that creationists and Darwinists differ. The opposing positions can be summarised as `special creation by God' and `evolution by natural selection'.
What evidence did Dawkins present to his young hearers to justify the evolutionary perspective on life which he was advocating? In brief - he majored on observations of variations in living things. He spoke of artificial selection affecting dogs, pigeons and the cabbage, and emphasised the observable changes that had occurred. He then argued that natural selection was essentially the same as natural selection, with survival and reproduction potential governing the long-term development of the breeding population. Is this enough to prove his position? Is Dawkins maintaining the integrity of science by this argument? It is certainly strange that he did not mention the creationist attitude to these observed variations. Artificial selection does nothing to demonstrate evolutionary change because all the genetic information permitting the variations is present in the ancestral population. Creationists understand that this information has been encoded by the Creator. There are limits to variation achieved by artificial selection - which is a scientific statement capable of being tested. To support his position, Dawkins must show how new information can be written into the genes of organisms - and this he omitted to do.
Of course, Dawkins has a response to this. He believes that mutations can introduce this new information, with beneficial mutations preserved by selective forces. However, in his lectures, he did not tell his audience the facts about mutations nor how they relate to information changes. The children heard plenty about observable (non-evolutionary) variations and few would have detected the mental leaps required to translate this to the model of continuous small-scale changes necessary for Darwinian evolution to occur. We feel entitled to ask the question: Is this really science? Does the evidence presented justify the conclusions reached?
These suspicions were confirmed by the computer programs used to model evolutionary change. These were Dawkins' anthromorphs and biomorphs. The programs appear to set no limits on morph variability. Artificial selection forces can be used to emphasise any visible feature. The programs are fine for demonstrating selection pressures, but they have no scientific value for evolutionary theory. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, these programs prove nothing! In his second lecture, Dawkins attempted to use computer-modelled selection pressures to show how the design of a spider's web could be explained. This was effectively done, but it should be emphasised that this example relates to the behaviour of the spider. The whole subject of animal behaviour is a fascinating one: how is instinctive behaviour passed from parent to offspring? It is an area which is full of mystery, and one which should be distinguished from Darwinian evolution. Dawkins' uncritical use of this example is yet further indication of a failure to achieve the scientific rigour expected of a Royal Institution lecture.
Much of Dawkins' subsequent argument is characterised by deductive reasoning. Given the assumption of gradual change, it is possible to explain eyes, flight, camouflage and even the bombardier beetle. Here again, the scientific content was minimal. It was enough to show the possibility of gradualism - the relentless force exerted by natural selection was invoked to achieve breathtaking changes. When scientific studies of natural selection in action demonstrate minor changes of body weight, beak shape, colour, and so on, it seems to be a leap of the imagination to declare it sufficient to turn a reptile into a bird. Such is the power of deductive reasoning, Dawkins did not appear to consider this an issue to be addressed!
It was most distressing to see the low level of scientific reasoning presented to these young minds. With minimal appeal to the testing of hypotheses, with no acknowledgement of different interpretations of the same data, with mental leaps, uncritical extrapolation, and with extensive deductive reasoning, these lectures are a cause for concern. Just as there are serious weaknesses in scientific method, so also is there much to be desired in Dawkins' view of the relationship between science and the Christian Faith. The Blind Watchmaker has been described as `an atheistic tract against Paley's argument from design', and a godless perspective on life certainly came across forcibly in the Christmas lectures. We consider that in these matters, Faraday is a far superior guide.
David J. Tyler (1992)