I recently just managed to finish Ryan Holiday bestseller book and had a chance to start a new book. The international bestseller, The Selfish Gene written by the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins. I may not have enough authority to criticize Dawkins work because biology is not even my field, my last biology class in school was 8 years ago. But as a general reader and a logical reader, I didn’t find the argument presented convincing.
When describing the complexity of DNA, Dawkins use the metaphor of a book-case containing the architect’s plans for a gigantic building, only the building is our body. This architect plans was very precise with no error. The building block which called nucleotide is arranged in order and sequence as an instruction that made up the organism. But in the end he denied the existence of the architect (the metaphor that he himself uses in the first place). So my question is how do you called that an argument?
It is not only confusing but also paradoxical. From my point of view his argument only strengthens the creationist point of view. Or is it Dawkins himself does not believe in the evolution theory proposed by Darwin at the first place, or he is plainly self denial?
Someone please help me.