We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
A central thesis of the argument is that evolution by natural selection is a simpler and more parsimonious explanation of the complexity observed in the biosphere than the God Hypothesis. He cites a paragraph where Richard Swinburne reasons that theism is parsimonious because it only invokes a single substance, God, as a cause and maintainer of every other object. This cause is seen as omnipotent, omniscient and totally free. Dawkins believes postulating such an entity doesn't explain anything and usurps the role of science. He suggests that an entity that controls every atom and listens to all our prayers cannot be something simple, and his existence would require a "mammoth explanation" of its own.[5]

Dawkins then turns to a discussion of Keith Ward's views on divine simplicity to show the difficulty "the theological mind has in grasping where the complexity of life comes from." Dawkins writes that Ward is sceptical of Arthur Peacocke's ideas that evolution is directed by other forces than only natural selection and that these processes may have a propensity toward increasing complexity. Dawkins says that this scepticism is justified, because complexity doesn't come from biased mutations. Dawkins writes:

[Natural selection], as far as we know, is the only process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity. The theory of natural selection is genuinely simple. So is the origin from which it starts. That which it explains, on the other hand, is complex almost beyond telling: more complex than anything we can imagine, save a God capable of designing it.[6]


[edit] Dawkins' response to criticism
Dawkins writes about his attendance at a conference in Cambridge sponsored by the Templeton Foundation,[6] where he challenged the theologians present to respond to the argument that a creator of a universe with such complexity would have to be complex and improbable.[7] According to Dawkins, the strongest response was the objection that he was imposing a scientific epistemology on a question that lies beyond the realm of science. When theologians hold God to be simple, who is a scientist like Dawkins "to dictate to theologians that their God had to be complex?"[8] Dawkins writes that he didn't get the impression that those employing this "evasive" defence were being wilfully dishonest, but were "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."[8]

The theologians, he writes, demanded that there must be a first cause, which can be given the name God. Dawkins responds that it must have been a simple cause, and he contends that God is not an appropriate name for it, unless God is divested of its normal associations. Dawkins wants the first cause to be a "self-bootstrapping crane" that slowly lifts the world to its current complexity. Postulating a prime mover that is capable of indulging in intelligent design is in Dawkins' opinion "a total abdication of the responsibility to find an explanation." He says that he doesn't require a narrowly scientific explanation, but what any honest theory that accounts for the complex phenomena of the natural world requires is a crane and not a skyhook.[9]


[edit] Assessment and criticism of the argument
Theist authors have presented extensive opposition, most notably by theologian Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion?, and philosophers Alvin Plantinga[10] and Richard Swinburne.[11] Some atheists have stated that they are not impressed by the argument, most notably physicist Lawrence M. Krauss,[12] biologist and critic of intelligent design H. Allen Orr,[13] and atheist philosopher of religion Graham Oppy.[14] The review by Allen Orr has irritated certain atheists. Norman Levitt doesn't appreciate the need to defend religion, asking why theologians are assumed to have the exclusive right to write about who "rules" the universe.[15] Daniel Dennett also took exception to Orr's review and the two had an exchange of open letters.[16] The agnostic philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny also considers this argument to be flawed.[17]





[edit] On the simplicity of God and materialist assumptions
Both Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne raise the objections that God is not complex. Swinburne gives two reasons why a God that controls every particle can be simple. First, he writes that a person is not the same as his brain, and he points to split-brain experiments that he has discussed in his previous work, thus he argues that a simple entity like our self can control our brain, which is a very complex thing. Second, he argues that simplicity is a quality that is intrinsic to a hypothesis, and not related to its empirical consequences.[11]

For most atheists it is this simple:

1 Theist makes a positive claim that god exists.

2 Atheist ask for evidence

3 Theist provides unconvincing evidence

4 Atheist rejects the positive claim

Thus untill such time convincing, unemotional, objective evidence is provided, an atheist will lack belief in the god concepts put forward by religion.

What happened to your post Sprint?

Welcome to OzPolitic Scatterbrains. Good to see you getting stuck into it.

I think Sprint is right. What you describe is agnosticism, not atheism.

I have more time for athiests than agnostics.

Athiest have taken a stand, made a decision.
agnostrics are all logical/theoretical and boring. Really sitting on the fence.

I got no idea what you mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

If you believe in God and are wrong you lose nothing, if you are right you gain everything. If you don't believe you either gain nothing or lose everything.