[quote author=“George Benedik”]I had to buy the magazine to read the story. In my opinion it’s not worth the $5.70 (CDN) I paid for it; you’ve probably read similar nonsense elsewhere. What might be ‘interesting’ (rather upsetting) about this article is to hear this kind of BS from a ‘scientist’.
Well for one thing, I have no intention of buying the magazine. If I miss it, I miss it, although these do tend to show up in libraries, doctors’ offices, etc., so I imagine I’ll get round to seeing it sooner or later.
Re. the ‘scientist’ stuff ... although they are significantly less susceptible than the general public, that still leaves a significant percentage of scientists who are religious (Was it 20% of the US Academy of Sciences who were religious? Something like that).
The problem with the argument is that it is ‘from faith’: there is no positive evidence for god’s existence, and the existence of evil is evidence against god’s existence. So you have to overcome all that to say things like “God can’t be completely contained within nature.”
But if you’re allowed beliefs without evidence on religious issues, why not be consistent and allow them on scientific issues as well? Just say that evolution is false because a little birdie told you so ...