Why Richard Dawkins is wrong

Dawkins recently made the claim that, because facts are facts, if we put aside the moral questions, eugenics would work. Presumably what he means by ‘work,’ is that a program of eugenics would create superior specimens of human beings, in the same way that it creates superior beef cattle.

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds,” Mr. Dawkins tweeted to his 2.8 millions followers. “It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” [“Richard Dawkins slammed for saying 'of course' eugenics would work,” by Jessica Chasmar in The Washington Times digital edition, Monday, February 17, 2020]

Putting aside the moral argument (which cannot be truly set aside, because we are morally accountable beings), there are two blazingly obvious ways in which he is—factually—wrong.

1) Dawkins is operating from a purely evolutionary paradigm, in which advances happen in spits and spurts, sometimes moving forward a step, sometimes backward a step. Natural selection eventually eliminates inferior models. But in advocating eugenics, Dawkins is suggesting that each specimen is an advance over the last one. But that is not how evolution works. Good Specimen A unites with good Specimen B, to produce Specimen C. But Specimen C does not always completely reflect the genetics that produced it. Things go wrong, whether it might have been a hidden weakness in the genes of A or B, or perhaps an [evolutionary] mutation that went in the wrong direction.

In order for Dawkins’ eugenics to truly work, it must be—has to be—tied to euthanasia, so that inferior Specimen Cs can be gently, lovingly, mercifully… killed. Otherwise, they will continue to pollute the gene pool.

And how are we to evaluate Specimen A’s or B’s genetic potential? Must their DNA be studied to evaluate their reproductive value? How good is good enough, in order to license them to reproduce?

2) Dawkins is also wrong in that eugenics is the worst form of materialistic reductionism. People are far more than their genes. Perhaps the best illustration of this is his fellow atheist Stephen Hawking. Would Dawkins’ endorsement of the usefulness of eugenics have denied the world Stephen Hawking, or say, Helen Keller, or the numerous artists and brilliant people who are on the autism spectrum, or wrestle with manic-depressive disorders? The world is full of the accounts of people born with disabilities who rise far above their limitations to contribute mightily to human flourishing.

There are many other refutations to Dawkins’ eugenic fantasy—these are just two that are obvious no matter what worldview or ideology you hold to. Facts are indeed facts. And Dawkins is conveniently ignoring them.

Review of Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster

This is a really good book. Copan does a great job handling the assaults of the New Atheists and working through difficult texts of the Old Testament (including the so-called terror texts). Copan deals with slavery, the Bible's treatment of women, holy war, and several other topics that often give Christians (and atheists!) problems. While I gave the book 5 stars for its basic excellence, there are a number of minor points I would raise questions about had I the time or were I myself a better scholar. I'll just mention two.

Copan frequently resorts to the language of exaggeration in his dealing with OT texts. Scripture certainly does use hyperbole in places, but I'm not convinced that it does so as often as Copan suggests. Sometimes this appears to be an argument of convenience.

Copan also goes in several directions regarding the Conquest that I felt were sort of weak, such as giving credence to the Infiltration theory of the Conquest. The account in the Bible of the crossing of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, in my view, pretty much vitiates the Infiltration theory. Both speak of sudden mass movements, and Joshua speaks of a sudden overthrow of the Canaanite dominance of the Promised Land. The fact that Canaanites continued to live in Canaan after the Conquest does not change the basic facts. Copan's resort to studying some of the various Hebrew words surrounding Israelite warfare merely opened the possibility for his interpretations (words do, after all, possess a semantic range), but certainly did not demand (or even suggest) his interpretations. Copan seems to acknowledge this in places with several "even if" statements.

Anyway, the book is excellent. All the chapters are good; the final chapter is outstanding. Well documented, well argued, this is certainly a book that should find a place on your apologetics shelf.

Book Review: Inside the Aquarium: The Making of a Top Soviet Spy

Inside the Aquarium: The Making of aTop Soviet Spy, by Viktor Suvorov

This was a profoundly disturbing book. Suvorov traces his career from his assignment as a lieutenant commanding a company of tanks in the Soviet 13th Army, through being promoted into military intelligence, then being picked for the Spetsnaz, and finally winding up as a GRU spy in the Soviet embassy in Vienna. Along the way he gives us an unparalleled vista of the bankruptcy of the Soviet system.

The view he gives of the GRU is instructive. It was a military intelligence organization that demanded the absolute loyalty and total domination of its secretive minions. The metaphor that most fits is that of selling one’s soul to the devil for your thirty minutes of power and privilege. Suvorov openly admits that he loved the power and privilege he had as a member of the Nomenklatura, of which he was a part by virtue of his association with the GRU. The acquisition and exercise of power were the factors that motivated him, by his own testimony.

In the GRU, every one was being watched and everyone was watching someone else. The lives of the agents were dominated by fear of failure, fear of mistakes, and fear of exposure—but not exposure to the other side so much as exposure to the GRU itself.

Perhaps the most telling example the author provides is of an assignment he was given by a GRU superior to drop a package containing a bible into a fellow GRU agent’s apartment mailbox, an agent known to be Suvorov’s friend. The agent was being tested. His only possible correct response was to immediately report that he’d received a bible in the mail (I can not imagine living under such petty reporting requirements). If he failed to make the report he would be accused of having an interest in religion (subversive indeed!) and would be evacuated from Vienna to the Aquarium, GRU headquarters at Khodinka airfield in Moscow, where he would be executed. While Suvorov was delivering the package he was tempted to warn his friend to make the report. He decided against doing so, realizing that he himself was known to be the man’s friend and was himself also under surveillance. As he made the drop, it dawned on Suvorov that this was as much a test for him as it was for his friend. Would he be loyal to the GRU, even though he would be condemning his friend to death, or would his friendship win out? Suvorov survived; his friend failed to make the requisite report, and was condemned.

It was a group which devoured its own. In such an organization, you quickly learned to trust no one, and to subvert all loves and loyalties to the overriding demands of the GRU. True friendship was impossible; it could get you killed. It was a soulless system, officially and aggressively atheistic, with no moral good other than the good of the State itself, as defined by the corrupt individuals who had happened to claw their way to the top of the mountain of bodies at the moment. “I serve the Soviet Union!” was the obligatory response to any praise or commendation.

I read the book as part of my research for my novel, Falcon Down, in which the GRU plays a significant part. It was a valuable exercise, and I gained much useful information. It is an interesting read, though you want to wash your hands when you put the book down.

One thing the book left me with was a renewed understanding of what the closed Soviet society became, especially for the upper class. The brutality of the Soviet system, combined with an official atheism able to offer no moral constraints, no meaning, and no hopes beyond the personal acquisition of power and privilege, nearly ruined a beautiful country and a vibrant people. Suvorov’s Soviet Union became a real-life Lord of the Flies experience. One can only hope that some day Russia will come into its own as a prosperous, free, and happy country.