Has Richard Dawkins been proven correct over time? He addresses the issue of the existence of God – an age old question – with what seems to be scientific investigation. He is a scientist after all. What he has written and the ideas he espouses are the products of science, right? The answer is…no.

His hypothesis presupposes that God’s existence is a question that can be answered with the methods and tools of science.  It is not.  God is not a scientific theory and therefore not subject to scientific proof or disproof.  That really should be the end of the inquiry.  But for the sake of argument let’s say 580px-New_College_Oxford_chapelit is.  If Dawkins were to have addressed the question in a scientifically sound manner, the proposition that God does not exist fails miserably. Or to be polite and use phraseology familiar to scientists; his hypothesis is not well supported. For mathematicians it is an ill-posed problem, meaning the terms are not well defined and not easily subject to numerical analysis.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins pulls a linguistic sleight of hand by convincing non-scientists that what they are reading is a product of the scientific method. The book, in fact, is a philosophical argument based in an analogy to the process of evolution. To emphasize, the book is an analogy.  From a purely scientific point of view, his argument is weak using nothing but statistics. And the data derived from controlled experiments based on his hypothesis?

‘Bueller, Bueller….’ Nada, zippo, not one thing.  No experimental data.  No experimental apparatus.  No methodology.  Nothing to peer review.  Ten years since the book was published.  Still waiting…