[betty boop]

In short, only complicated objects can design simpler ones; information cannot flow in the other direction, with simple objects designing complicated ones. But that means any designer God would have to be more complex —and thus even more improbable— than the universe he was supposed to explain.

This "proof" against the existence of God as creator of the universe is likewise "proof" that chemical evolution cannot be the source of complexity that we observe in the living world. For the physical-chemical laws are "simple", i.e., have very low information content; while even the simplest of living systems, bacteria, are enormously complex (i.e., have high information centent). So we can just forget about abiogenesis....

...which is actually a theory I'd have thought would be close to Dawkins' heart, as a "God substitute" -- e.g., abiogenesis moots the idea of a divine creator. Yet in his desire to bump off God, Dawkins has to bump off abiogenesis as well. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

[UpAllNight]

--Yet in his desire to bump off God, Dawkins has to bump off abiogenesis as well.--

Not in the least.

[UpAllNight]

I think the error is your logic comes from taking him out of context.

[UpAllNight]

--...which is actually a theory I'd have thought would be close to Dawkins' heart, as a "God substitute" -- e.g., abiogenesis moots the idea of a divine creator.--

abiogenesis is NOT a theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

This "proof" against the existence of God as creator of the universe is likewise "proof" that chemical evolution cannot be the source of complexity that we observe in the living world. For the physical-chemical laws are "simple", i.e., have very low information content; while even the simplest of living systems, bacteria, are enormously complex (i.e., have high information centent). So we can just forget about abiogenesis

Great catch! Thank you so much for your outstanding posts.