The other day I asked, "can positing the existence of a Creator be a legitimate scientific hypothesis?"
"The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." -- Richard Dawkins.
Now, the question is, is this guy Richard Dawkins, considered a reputable scientist by the darwinian community, or will they circle the wagons and shun him?
1 comment:
How about the rest ofthe quote:
"...A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared."
Post a Comment