[ThinkPlease]

I did provide an argument regarding the Provine post. I can only assume that since you didn't address it that you think it is valid.

Note that there isn't any room for God in science, nor is there room for an invisible Purple People Eater that created the universe either. The fact is that science is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and the idea of any supreme creator is simply not naturalistic. Nor is it repeatable. Provine's statements are an extension of that argument, but are simply his opinion, and I don't consider that it speaks for anyone but himself, considering that he doesn't logically explain himself (unless you would care to provide some sort of context).

See science can't say anything about a creator, at least at this time, because there never has been any evidence pointing to a creator, and because of the logical difficulties in have someone or something creating the universe (i.e. who created the creator, the "Its turtles all the way down" argument).

[GarySpFc]

Note that there isn't any room for God in science, nor is there room for an invisible Purple People Eater that created the universe either. The fact is that science is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and the idea of any supreme creator is simply not naturalistic. Nor is it repeatable. Provine's statements are an extension of that argument, but are simply his opinion, and I don't consider that it speaks for anyone but himself, considering that he doesn't logically explain himself (unless you would care to provide some sort of context).

If that was the postion Provine was taking, then I could accept it, but he makes it very clear that his position and the position of Darwinism is atheistic. Furthermore, in his debates with Phillip Johnson he was very emphatic on this point.