APO 101 – GENERAL APOLOGETICS

DAWKINS’ DELUSION:
A CRITIQUE ON SEVEN OF
DAWKINS’ OBJECTIONS IN ‘THE GOD DELUSION’

A TERM PAPER SUBMITTED TO

PROFESSOR RAMON MARGALLO
APO 101 – GENERAL APOLOGETICS

GLOBAL LIFE UNIVERSITY – RATIO CHRISTI

PASIG CITY, METRO MANILA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

BY ESON L. GUMBAN
DECEMBER 2023
 I. ON THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

Dawkins’ objection of the doctrine of the Trinity might be implicit but was very apparent

through his statements in the book. Assuming that his readers were not familiar with the

doctrine, he asked questions (with regards Jesus as consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit),

“What on earth could that possibly mean, you are probably asking? Substance? What

‘substance’? What exactly do you mean by ‘essence’? ‘Very little’ seems the only reasonable

reply.”1 Is it true that ‘very little’ seems to be the reasonable answer for these queries? With all

the ready literatures that explain and answer questions with regard the doctrine, it is interesting

that he would resort to that answer – ‘very little’. This section will look onto Dawkins’ claims

and arguments to see if the answers for queries concerning Trinity are ‘very little’.

Dawkins’ Intentional Snub of the Reasonable Explanation of Trinity

Dawkins quoted Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation of the Trinity, “In the unity of the

Godhead there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons

being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is

God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.”2

Despite having read this concise explanation of the doctrine, he still proceeded to ask the

‘wrong’ question: “Do we have one God in three parts, or three Gods in one?” Nowhere in the

Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation did it says there that God is divided in parts nor there are

many Gods. Whether or not this question is intentionally asked to mock the explanation of the

Doctrine, it is clear that Dawkins statement, by way of implication, commits a Strawman Fallacy.

A strawman fallacy occurs when a person’s actual position or argument is substituted with a

1
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Uxbridge Road, London: Bantam Press, 2006) 33.
2
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 33.
distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.3 He chose to

use his own perceived explanation of the Trinity to implicitly mock the doctrine.

Dawkins’ dislike of the doctrine was not only expressed in his strawman attack on

Trinity. He goes further by resorting to ‘Ad Hominem.’ An ‘ad hominem’ is a type of argument

attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character

instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.4 This attack was apparent when he

said, “Perhaps it is the very fact that there is no evidence to support theological opinions, either

way, that fosters the characteristic draconian hostility towards those of slightly different opinion,

especially, as it happens, in this very field of Trinitarianism.”5 There really is no evidence for

those who refuse to look at the evidence. Trinity would not survive for centuries if it were not

founded in evidences such as biblical texts (counted also as historical documents), early

Christian writings, philosophy and theological reasonings, and etc. that supports its theological

implication.

II. ON THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE

Richard Dawkins is vocal with regards his standpoint on the fine tuning of the universe.

As an atheist, he advocates in his book that “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to

design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual

evolution” instead of “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately

3
“Strawman Fallacy,” Logically Fallacious, accessed December 29, 2023,
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy.
4
Andre Munro, “Ad Hominem,” Britannica, November 09, 2023, accessed December 29, 2023,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ad-hominem.
5
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 34.
designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”6 To examine the validity of

this claim, this section will look onto some weaknesses and strengths of the argument.

Applauding Dawkins’ ‘Honesty’

“Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever

beyond the reach of science”7 Dawkins stated on the book. Admission that there are things for

sure that cannot be known using science is a sign of honesty and could be a ‘form’ of strength

not only in this argument but throughout the book. This would at least give the readers an

assurance that he is dedicated to telling the truth (at the least). Aside from his seeming ‘honesty,’

there are no strong arguments given against God’s intelligent designing of the universe.

Weaknesses of Dawkins’ Argument Against God for the Finely Tuned Universe

Dawkins, arguing against God as the author of a finely tuned universe, had his thoughts

scattered throughout his book. He did not seem to focus his arguments directly as to how God

cannot be the source of the fine tuning of the universe. One of the reasons it can be said that he is

not focused on giving a defined argument against God as the director or creator of a designed

universe is his assertion of the ‘non-overlapping magisterial’ or also known as NOMA. NOMA

proposes that science and religion are not compatible with each other, yet, they both can co-exist.

Stephen Jay Gould, as quoted by Dawkins, states, “The … magisterium, of science covers the

empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The

magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These

two… do not overlap …”8 Dawkins could have gone directly to argue against God as the source

of the fine tuning of the universe but he has spent time on several pages of the book proving that
6
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Uxbridge Road, London: Bantam Press, 2006) 31.
7
Dawkins, God Delusion, 56.
8
Dawkins, God Delusion, 55.
Gould’s NOMA was wrong. But it could be asked of him, “what does NOMA have to do with

the fine tuning of the universe?” Even if NOMA was wrong, it does not prove that God is not the

author of the finely tuned universe. Besides, many scientists don’t agree with NOMA. Take for

example Stephen Meyers. In his books ‘Return of the God Hypothesis,’ ‘Darwin’s Doubt,’ and

‘Signature in the Cell’ he argued that “theism – with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent

and active creator – best explains that evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological

origins.”9 He did not adhere to the NOMA’s compartmenting of science and religion (theology).

Add to Dawkins’ seeming weakness of argument is his standpoint with regards the

‘aliens.’ He would rather argue for the existence of the ‘Little Green Men’ (LGM) rather than

God.10 It is because just as God’s existence can’t be disproved, so were the aliens. Even if the

existence of the LGM is proven, would that disprove the hypothesis that God is responsible for

the fine tuning of the universe? Is it more probable that these aliens are the one who intelligently

designed the universe or they are just created beings and are also part and beneficiary of the

intelligently designed universe?

In the end, Christians can argue that the best explanation for the finely tuned universe is

an Intelligent Designer. It would take a lot of faith to believe on extraterrestrial beings as

responsible for the intelligent design of the universe knowing that there are no evidences for it,

unlike the Theistic God of whom both science and bible testify of creating this finely tuned

universe fitting creatures that were made in His own image.

III. ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

9
“Stephen Meyer: Philosopher of Science,” Discovery Institute, accessed December 21, 2023,
https://stephencmeyer.org.
10
Dawkins, God Delusion, 55.
 C. S. Lewis proposed a trilemma that since Jesus claimed to be the son of God, he must

be either a ‘Lunatic, Liar, or Lord.’ But this trilemma was not accepted and then challenged by

Dawkins in his book. He stated that Jesus’ claims of divine status are minimal and even if there

are good evidence that He claimed to be God, Lewis’ trilemma is lacking. Dawkins offered then

a fourth possibility: Jesus was honestly mistaken.11 Though he thought He was God, it was not

true. He based this assumption on the fact that many people were honestly mistaken on many

things so it is also possible that the same happened to Jesus.

Saying that there are no good evidences that Jesus claimed to be God is an indication of

ignorance of the cultural context of the Bible. Of course, if one would find exact words of Jesus

saying, “I am God” or “I am divine” it will take him or her an eternity to find one. (But to

counter that, one would not either find a passage where He said “I am not God”). What you

would find in the Scriptures are implicit claims of Jesus’ divinity. Take for example Jesus’

pronouncement of forgiveness to a paralytic man found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and

Luke. The people around Him, particularly the scribes and the Pharisees, already know what was

being said. Jesus was blaspheming! Mark 2:7 records, “Why does this man speak like that? He is

blaspheming? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Craig Keener comments on this particular

passage, “Sins were to be atoned for by offerings in the temple. Judaism taught that only God

could forgive sins but most Jews allowed that some of God’s representatives might speak on

God’s behalf… but Jesus was not a priest, no one had offered sacrifice, and the scribes had heard

no basis for the pronouncement of forgiveness not even clear indication of repentance.”12 Jesus is

trying to convey a message that because He himself is God, He does not have to follow certain

traditions or rules to offer forgiveness. Another example is in John 15:58, “Jesus said to them,
11
Dawkins, God Delusion, 92.
12
Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois:
IVP Academic, 2014), 133.
Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Once again, the Jews understood this well.

In the succeeding verse, “they picked up stones to throw at him” because they knew that Jesus

was claiming to be God, thus, committing blasphemy.13

The point of the above examples is to show that there are passages in the Bible that if

read at face value, have the tendencies to be misunderstood. That is why an honest truth seeker

and interpreter of the bible has to have some background on the historical and cultural context of

the text. Just because there is no word-for-word statement of Jesus’ deity does not mean He does

not claim to be God.

Now that the evidence for Jesus claims of being God was already established, it still does

not disprove Dawkins assumption – Jesus could still be honestly mistaken. But is that really the

case? Can Jesus be honestly mistaken even if His actions lead to the conclusion that He is God –

particularly, His miracles. There are 27 miracles performed by Jesus that were recorded in the

gospels. These miracles were observed by multiple witnesses, happened in different places and at

different times, involving different beneficiaries. Dawkins is faced with the problem of the

overwhelming number of miracles wrought by Jesus in order to prove his assumption that He is

just honestly mistaken. If Jesus was just honestly mistaken about his divinity, then how did he

perform those miracles, let alone perform it continuously for several occasions? It goes to show

that He has the power to work miracles because He is God and knows it. Having said these

another question might appear, “Are there any evidences for Jesus’ miracles outside the bible?”

The answer is ‘yes.’ Ancient historians such as Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Celsus (a pagan

philosopher) do not deny Jesus’ miracles.14 Josephus called Jesus a ‘doer of wonderful works.’

13
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 474.
14
Greg Monette, The Wrong Jesus: Fact, Belief, Legend, Truth… Making Sense of What You’ve Heard
(Carol Stream, Illinois: Navpress, 2014), 137.
Celsus sees Jesus as doer of ‘magic.’ Despite their interpretation of Jesus’ doings, they just

support that miracles wrought by Jesus were true and can be historically proven.

This section did not proceed with the resurrection as an evidence for Jesus’ divinity for

the reason that it focused on the two of Dawkins assumptions in his statement. Was Jesus just

honestly mistaken about his identity be proven true? The above assessment proved it to be false.

Is there good evidence that Jesus claim to be divine? There are sure good evidences that He

claimed to be divine. He knows that He is God and He proved it by His actions.

IV. ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

God’s power (omnipotence) and knowledge (omniscience) seems to be contradicting

according to Dawkins. In his book he said, “If God is omniscient, he must already know how he

is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he

can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.”15 Here he

presents a dilemma that needs to be examined whether or not it is plausible.

The Seeming Logical Consistency of Dawkins’ Argument

This argument seemed very plausible at first glance. In fact, if one would use this

argument to a truth-seeker or even a believer that is ‘not knowledgeable enough and new’ with

reason and logic, he or she might be persuaded. Why is that so? For those who are just beginning

to study logic and reason, Dawkins’ logical framework of this argument seems to be coherent.

Paraphrasing Dawkins’ proposition, he is saying that God’s ‘all-knowing’ attribute, by

implication, should cause him not to intervene in the history, which makes him not all-powerful.

15
Dawkins, God Delusion, 55.
And if God can intervene in the history which he already knew beforehand, it would make him

not all-knowing. This would make a perfect sense to an unwary readers and listeners. The

seemingly logical coherence of this argument is its strength.

The Compatibility of God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience

False Dichotomy. Dawkins presented a dilemma that cannot be resolved when in fact,

God is both omniscient and omnipotent using a better explanation. The doctrine of ‘Middle

Knowledge’, which the Molinists hold will help explain the consistency and simultaneous

existence of God’s omniscience and omnipotence. It holds that in God’s omniscience, He is fully

aware of what would happen in the future without interfering with the creatures’ free choices. 16

What made God omnipotent in this view is that, He can still implement and accomplish His

ultimate purpose in the future time without intervening his foreknowledge. Therefore, He has

displayed omnipotence while maintaining His omniscience.

False Assumption. Dawkins ended up presenting a false dilemma because he had his false

assumption with regards God’s omnipotence and omniscience. By saying that God’s all-

powerfulness and all-knowingness does not fit with each other, he is putting one of God’s

attribute as superior over the other. God’s exercise of being omnipotent and, at the same time,

omniscient is very evident in the human’s ‘free will’. He knows what mankind would freely

choose in every decision they would make, but despite that bestowed freedom, he is powerful to

accomplish His will without thwarting His foreordained plan. It goes to show that in reality,

God’s character and attributes are all equal and in unity. Just as God’s love coexists with his

wrath, his power and knowledge are not in conflict. The truth is, you cannot remove of God’s

attribute from him. That would make him imperfect and would compromise his nature.
16
“What is middle knowledge?” Got Questions, January 04, 2022, Accessed December 22, 2023,
https://www.gotquestions.org/middle-knowledge.html.
 V. ON SELFISH GENE AS THE EXPLANATION FOR MORALITY

‘Selfish Gene’ as the explanation for man’s morality was championed by Dawkins. The

sixth chapter of the book explained how selfish gene is responsible for man’s goodness. “There

are circumstances – not particularly rare – in which genes ensure their own selfish survival by

influencing organisms to behave altruistically… A gene that programs individual organisms to

favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself” 17 believed Dawkins. In

simpler terms, genes preserve and propagate themselves by influencing traits and behaviors that

contribute to their chances of replication. This section will look onto this prominent objection by

Dawkins.

Loopholes of Dawkins’ Selfish Gene

A weakness of Dawkins’ proposition of selfish gene is that it ignores other possible

factors that might contribute to the development of one’s moral values. Regardless of whether

one is theistic or non-theistic in his or her view, factors such as family upbringing, cultural

influences, education, environment, personal experiences and the like contribute much on an

individual’s character. But Dawkins clearly overlooked these factors in order to press his

Darwinian bias.

Another weak point of this proposition is that it commits a ‘Category Mistake’.

Obviously selfish gene is a biological idea. The issue of morality will never be explained by

biology which many atheists find hard to accept. These two are in completely different

categories. Frank Turek, a co-author of Norman Geisler, captured this truth, “Furthermore, moral

17
Dawkins, God Delusion, 216.
laws are prescriptive and come from authoritative personal agents. Biologial processes are

descriptive and have no authority to tell you what to do.”18 Despite this massive difference in

their categories, Dawkins purposely overlooked this matter in favor of his Darwinian leaning. In

one of his interview he admitted, “It’s pretty hard to get objective morality without religion.” 19

Despite realizing this truth, he would completely rule out other factors (as mentioned above),

including God (as implied by his word ‘religion’).

Selfish gene will not explain morality. Even a lay person who knows or is aware of the

law of causality (either by its term or principle) will come to a conclusion that if there is a moral

law, it follows that there should be a Moral Giver. That is the basic cause and effect principle.

Therefore, morality is not arbitrary. It is objective, and what makes it objective is because it is

grounded on God, the Moral Giver. The bible says that He is immutable by nature (Mal. 3:6; Jas.

1:17; Heb. 13:8;) all the more reason to trust that objective morality exists because of Him.

VI. ON THE SEEMING STRANGENESS OF THE BIBLE – THE STORY OF ‘THE

FLOOD’

Dawkins’ hold that the Bible cannot be a source of “morals and rules for living.” He

made himself clear with regards this objection on the seventh chapter of his book. He said, “To

be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a

chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated,

distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us

and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some of the sheer
18
Frank Turek, Stealing From God: Why atheists need God to make their case (n.p.: Navpress, 2014),
Morality, pdfreader.
19
Turek, Stealing From God, Morality.
strangeness of the Bible.”20 Is Dawkins’ observation that the Bible is just a weird book can be

true? Or is it just a plain proposition without a concrete evidence?

This section will discuss and answer Dawkins’ objection by looking particularly in his

argument in the story of ‘The Flood’ found in the book of Genesis.

Is Genesis Copied From Babylonian Myths?

One of Dawkins’ arguments for saying that the Bible is just a weird book is the seeming

parallels of Genesis to Babylonian myths, particularly the story of ‘The Flood.’ He asserts,

“Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-

Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures.”21 This assertion,

unfortunately, was not followed by evidence or any references from his book. Even if there

appear to be texts that were copied from one another, serious scholars of the Old Testament find

that resemblances and parallels prove nothing aside from a genetic relationship between biblical

and Mesopotamian accounts – therefore lack evidence of being derived from Babylonian

traditions.22 All resemblances only point out that biblical narratives (such as The Flood) moves in

the same circle of ideas and suggests common cultural atmosphere.23

Dawkins accusation that “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible

have either not read it or not understood it …”24 seemed to bounce back to him. It is more proper

to say that those who accused the Bible as a strange and weird book have not read or not

understood it. Since the bible is an anthology of documents, composed in different times in

20
Dawkins, God Delusion, 237.
21
Ibid, 237.
22
William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic WM. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The
Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1991), 74.
23
Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, OT Survey, 74.
24
Dawkins, God Delusion, 237.
history, written by different authors through different literary and with different audiences in

mind, proper reading of the Bible and method of interpretation is a must. In Gordon Fee and

Douglas Stuart’s introduction on ‘How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth,’ they have suggested

an overview of how to properly interpret the Bible.25 There are at least two tasks a reader or an

interpreter must be able to do: (1) exegesis, and (2) hermeneutics. The first task of exegesis

intends to discover the original intent of the text through studying its historical and literary

context. The second task of hermeneutics is about the ‘here and now’, which aims to discover

what is the relevance of the text for today’s hearers. This way any sane person would not see the

bible as weird and strange book.

Having said these, Dawkins apparent mistake is his personal bias (which he actually

admitted on the later chapter of the book26). If only he would consider and read the painstaking

works of biblical scholars, side-by-side with other non-Christian works, biases such as this

would have been avoided.

VII. ON THE ABORTION

Dawkins’ advocacy of abortion is very obvious in the eighth chapter of the book. With

certainty, he posits that “… religious mind cannot see the moral difference between killing a

microscopic cluster of cells on the one hand, and killing a full-grown doctor on the other.”27 This

is in connection with the case of Reverend Paul Hill’s murder of Dr. John Britton and his

bodyguard James Barrett on July 29, 1994, outside Britton’s clinic – a clinic in Pensacola that

25
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth (Philippines: Zondervan, 2014),
21-35.
26
Dawkins, God Delusion, 281.
27
Ibid, 294.
provides abortion. The point of his statement is that those who are against abortion, would rather

kill a fully grown human (a doctor) with nervous system capable of suffering, than kill embryos

(unborn babies) whose nervous system are not fully developed and unsure of experiencing pain.

Is Dawkins’ statement true, that those who are not in favor of abortion cannot see the

difference between killing an unborn baby and an adult? And if that were proven to be true, does

that make abortion acceptable? This section will examine Dawkins’ objection for abortion by

looking at his statements.

Examining Dawkins’ Pro-Abortion Stance

Are unborn babies just ‘microscopic cluster of cells?’. And if the unborn babies are just

cluster of cells, does that mean they are more acceptable to be killed than a fully grown

developed man? (By the way, Dawkins is to be applauded, though he suggests that fetuses are

just clumps of cells, he admitted in his statement that they have life – it’s just happened that it is

easier to kill them.) His argument is that unborn babies are not capable of suffering – or even if

they suffer, it is not because they are human.28 What are they then? Even Christopher Hitchens, a

prominent atheist, understand that unborn babies are human, “In order to terminate a pregnancy,

you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and whatever the method, break some

bones and rupture some organs.”29 Unborn babies are product and ‘the successful result of the

process of the process of fertilization at which the male sperm and the female ovum unite.” 30

Fetuses are products of men and women, so logically, they are human beings. Regardless of

28
Dawkins, God Delusion, 297.
29
“The Reality of Abortion According to Christopher Hitchens,” Human Coalition, Accessed December 27,
2023, https://www.humancoalition.org/graphics/the-reality-of-abortion-according-to-christopher-hitchens/.
30
Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 66.
whether or not they feel pain at an early age of conception, the point of the matter is – they have

life. Whether it is a fetus or an adult, terminating one’s life is unacceptable and immoral.

It is also worth noting that Dawkins has committed the fallacy of Hasty Generalization 31

in his statement. Just because there are Christians that support or delight on what Rev. Paul Hill’s

murder does not mean all Christians have the same sympathy. As mentioned above, Christianity

values the sanctity of life. It is an utter accusation that ‘religious minds’ (pertaining primarily to

Christians) cannot see the moral difference between killing an unborn baby and an adult. In fact,

Christianity value all life. To terminate one’s life is unacceptable and immoral.

31
Find book to define this
a;dflja;lfdkja;lkdsfja;lkdsjfalkdjfla;kjdf;lkajdflakjdf;lajdf;lakjdf;alkjdfadffaaaaaaaaaaffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and E-books

Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Uxbridge Road, London: Bantam Press, 2006.

Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth. Philippines:
Zondervan, 2014.

Keener, Craig. The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, 2nd ed. Downers Grove,
Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014.

Lasor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic WM. Bush. Old Testament Survey:
The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991.

Monette, Greg. The Wrong Jesus: Fact, Belief, Legend, Truth… Making Sense of What You’ve
Heard. Carol Stream, Illinois: Navpress, 2014.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Turek, Frank. Stealing From God: Why atheists need God to make their case. Navpress, 2014.
Pdfreader.

Internet Resources
“Stephen Meyer: Philosopher of Science.” Discovery Institute. https://stephencmeyer.org.

“Strawman Fallacy.” Logically Fallacious.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy.

“The Reality of Abortion According to Christopher Hitchens.” Human Coalition.

https://www.humancoalition.org/graphics/the-reality-of-abortion- according-to-
christopher-hitchens/.

“What is middle knowledge?” Got Questions. January 04, 2022.

https://www.gotquestions.org/middle-knowledge.html.

Munro, Andre. “Ad Hominem.” Britannica. November 09, 2023.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ad-hominem.