One of the major factors that fooled some of the scientists during the two and a half centuries was the fancy sounding but ultimately nonsensical writing of David Hume.
Hume somehow convinced his audience, and much of society, to think God couldn’t exist because he would be limited by the laws of nature.
Take note—the laws of nature are a god for the religion of naturalism. This religion includes evolutionism.
There’s no such thing as a nonreligious human mind.
For the religion of naturalism, the primary dogma is that everything is explainable by the laws of nature.
Many have rightly pointed out that Hume was using circular logic: in order to claim that God doesn’t exist, he asserted that miracles couldn’t happen because they violate the laws of nature, which assumes the laws of nature are primary, an assumption dependent on the premise that God doesn’t exist.
So Hume’s conclusion is the same as his starting premise.
I can't speak for Hume, but every definition of God I've ever seen puts Him outside and above nature, the Creator and controller of nature, God is neither nature nor controlled by nature.
If Hume really did argue differently, then he was simply wrong about it.
reasonisfaith: "Take note—the laws of nature are a god for the religion of naturalism.
This religion includes evolutionism."
Sure, you can repeat that claim as often as you like, but it wasn't true the first time and constant repetition won't make it more true.
The "laws of nature" are surely God's laws, but they are not God by any definition, especially to atheists who deny any supernatural or extra-natural being.
As for evolution, many consider it simply one possible tool in God's creative tool box, but very likely not His only tool.