Replies

Understanding evolution led him to be an atheist. There's an interesting empirical proof for you. This guy basically believes that whenever science explains something, it proves the nonexistence of a God or reason behind the universe. I'd like to know how that foillows logically.

I'll give it a shot.

God, as popularly conceived, is thought to be all powerful and possesses "free will". If he wishes for something to be, well then, by God, it will be! With this in mind, "explanations" for all sorts of things become possible. After all, what science can't explain, we can "explain" by claiming that God willed it. He can do anything, after all.

Well, science makes God "disappear" by showing how many things seem to be very much constrained by a relatively small set of rules or principles, or how a small set of rules or principles leads inevitably to some result or observation.

This is how the theory of evolution pushes the idea of God aside. With just a few basic principles, God becomes unnecessary to explain the emergence of species.

Now none of this "proves" that there is no God. By there certainly seems to be a trend here. Every time some mystery is explained by God, or spirits, or something supernatural, along comes a scientist that gives an alternative that doesn't require an all-powerful God with a free will to do anything he wants arbitrarily.

Dawkins, a boring author even when he writes only about biology, is venturing out of his field of expertise, the same sin the Creationists and ID advocates are accussed of.

No scientific proof of God's existence is possible, imo, since Western science is founded on observation only of things that can be mathematically quantified and/or logically categorized. God, being prior to all existing material creation, simply cannot be observed. His existence, or non-existence, is simply not a scientific question at all. When people like Dawkins hypothesize about God and revealed religious truth, they are WAY out of their field of expertise. However, before you write me off as a fundie religious nut, let me say that when religious people bring their religious assumptions to the science debate, they also are operating well out of their own field of expertise. This debate has generated much heat and friction, but no light whatsoever, and I have read countless Crevo threads and the posted links.

I remain a believer in a Creator God, but I would be absolutely astounded to learn of any tangible scientific evidence for His existence. Just as psychologists have studied the human mind and neurologists the human brain and nervous system without discovering the human soul that dwells within us all. Why? Because the purely spiritual is invisible to the scientific eye.