Dawkinite Contradiction

Barry Arrington at Uncommon Descent provides an interesting blog post in which he contrasts two statements by Richard Dawkins. In the first, he quotes a famous (or notorious) statement in River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life in which Dawkins says that there are no ethics or purpose but only "blind, pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music" (River out of Eden, p. 133). Arrington then provides a quote from a debate in which Dawkins argued that humans are capable of rebelling against their DNA and breaking away from selfishness in favor of long-term planning. Dawkins says that if humans do not do this, then no species will.

Arrington rightly explains the logical contradiction between these quotes. On the one hand, there are no ethics in this system. On the other hand, Dawkins says that humans should relinquish selfishness. In all that I have read by Dawkins I have never encountered a single instance in which Dawkins attempts to resolve this contradiction, or even demonstrates that he is aware of it (if anyone knows of such an attempt, cite it in a comment below).

How could someone hold such contradictory views? The quote from River out of Eden is a logically inescapable consequence of atheistic Darwinism. It is not surprising that someone with that worldview would conclude that ultimately there is no basis for ethics. However, every person is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and has an inner concience of God's moral law implanted in him (Romans 2), and so it is expected that a person would try to hold onto some concept of morality and goodness despite his worldview. The contradiction between Dawkins' statements illustrates that he is unable to live with the consequences of his own worldview.

I have written elsewhere on the necessarily theistic foundation of morality. A more complete explanation is provided in those posts: here, here, here, here, and here.