There are other significant difficulties that evolutionists face such as the origin of human language and the existence of morality and ethics.
If, according to evolutionists, we are essentially animals, how do we explain the notions of right and wrong that are universally accepted?
He says that one day he might pluck up the courage to solve it.
He cannot explain how the first sexual being actually arose and how it mated with another creature of its own kind.
Richard Dawkins has admitted that his theory of naturalistic evolution is not watertight and has many unsolved mysteries.
So, in fact, the evolutionists are actually confirming that our universe bears all the marks of design by a greater intelligence.
Is it possible to make any real progress in science on the basis of atheistic naturalism? Scientists who are committed to the view that the world is largely the result of chance have no logical basis for thinking that we live in an orderly universe.
You can’t derive that idea from atheistic naturalism.
Dawkins faces a huge problem in that atheists cannot provide a proper philosophical basis for scientific enterprise in the first place.
When he claims that science is anti-God, he is effectively cutting off the branch he is sitting on.