74  Purpose of life

Menu  back

The question of the purpose of life cannot be answered based on evolution theory. On the contrary: This question cannot even be posed due to naturalistic considerations. The evolutionist Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe which we see has…no order, no purpose, no good and no bad, only purposeless indifference.”

The words of Dawkins, who described the universe as nothing other than purposeless complacency (1), are by no means meant maliciously or as an expression of resentment, but rather the inevitable conclusion when the theory of evolution is sought through consistently to its end. However, if we turn away from chance toward plan and purpose, we recognize that we are a part of a great cosmic plan in which we have a right to ask what is the purpose of our life?

The scientific method of research is neutral regarding the purpose of life. It allows us to avoid subjective opinions and ideological influences to the greatest possible extent. Since many evolutionists deny any purpose behind the origin of life and replace it with a miracle-producing random process, they do, in fact, take a position. For this reason, it is not possible for them to speak of a natural scientific theory, in the true sense.

According to evolution biologist William B. Provine, the modern understanding of evolution allows the conclusion that there is no final purpose of life (2).

Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod also wrote that humans should awake from their dream and recognize their total abandonment and radical estrangement, in order to know their place as vagabonds at the edge of the universe (3). Otherwise, it is also possible that one day Monod will wake up and recognize that life does, in fact, has a purpose because it originates from a creator who gave it a purpose.

These 75  |  Menu


(1) Richard Dawkins, A Scientist´s Case against God, Science, Aug. 1997, page 892.
(2) Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Naturwissenschaftler und Religion in Amerika, Larson/Witham, November 1999, page 74.
(3) J. Monod, Zufall und Notwendigkeit, 1977, page 151.

Comment this Site!

Rohit wrote:
No, you don't understand his logic. He is ponntiig out a fact. That is not evidence for (or against) evolution; it's a statement about acceptance or non-acceptance of evolution. While argumentum ad populum is indeed a common logical fallacy, Dawkins is no