In the extreme, it never arrives at all. A case in point below.
Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
In Dawkins’ case intelligence appears to have never arrived at all. What does he base his claim on that intelligence (among other things) come late into the universe? A sample size of one. In typical Darwinian fashion he takes one thing that he knows in the present (intelligence in the form of humanity appearing some billions of years into the history of the universe) and extrapolates it backward through all of time and space to arrive at a conclusion that intelligence only came lately. Is it possible Dawkins has actually deluded himself into believing what he is saying, which implies he’s not very bright, or whether he knows how baseless it is, which implies he’s not very honest.
Let’s move along to complexity. There is nothing at all in science that would cause us to presume the universe had a simple beginning. The axiom of cause and effect tells us that the universe must have been just as complex at its beginning as it is now. It’s form has changed but not its complexity. It if was as simple as Dawkins stupidly and/or dishonestly posits then by virture of cause and effect we wouldn’t be here and the universe would be a perfectly homogenous distribution of matter and energy.
As far as statistically improbable things, the appearance of a singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe at the instant of the big bang is the mother of all statistical improbabilities.
It’s no wonder he made the essay disappear where this and other similar brainfarts have been pointed out. Its removal is evidence he’s not as dense as he appears. Its appearance in the first place is evidence he thinks his critics are too dense to not easily demolish it.
Let’s hear from the readers – is Dawkins stupid, dishonest, or both? My vote is for both.