Did Darwin Really Kill God ?

  I wonder what Dawkins was thinking right before he sat down to write chapter two. I can’t imagine how many outlines, concept maps, lists and other things he did to organize his thinking. I can imagine him sitting down in his office saying to himself “OK, now I get to explain the most difficult and controversial topic ever known to man in one chapter.” Its own existence. All of us and all of the other people in the world have been kids. When we are kids there is a moment in our life in which we ask questions about everything. We walk around and asking mommy why is the sky blue? Mommy, why can horses eat grass? etc. As we continue to grow up we are given a correct and precise to all of our questions. All of them except two “Why am I here?” and “How was all this created?” For these questions we only get theories, like the one proposed to us by Dawkins in this chapter.

I always thought I understood Darwin's theory of evolution. After this chapter I realized that I was mistaken and that Darwin's theory  is extremely more complex that I thought. I really had no Idea that: “The precise thorn bush shape of a protein molecule such as Hemoglobin is stable in the sense that two chains consisting of the same sequences of amino acids will tend, like two springs to come to rest in exactly the same three dimensional pattern.”

I am Catholic. Therefore, I am expected to be in complete disagreement with both Dawkins and Darwin. However I am not. I don't believe that God created the world in seven days. I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, or as Dawkins explains it, “the survival of the stable.” People say Darwin killed religion. I believe Darwin enhanced religion.The process that Dawkins explains in chapter two is by far the most complex that I have ever heard of. Now I ask myself how could anybody believe that such a complex process could occur out of pure luck? I agree with Dawkins in all of his process and I believe that as he himself said it, he is not to far away from the truth. However I can’t agree with him when he says things like “At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We call it the replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of creating copies of itself.” Dawkins himself says his book isn't intended to question religion. But I do question Dawkins, do you really believe that the miracle of such a molecule like the replicator being formed is an accident? That the replicator,  having extraordinary property of creating copies of itself, was simply a coincidence? I simply cant believe that.