Paul I could argue how wrong all that is but that would actually require effort and caring about your views of evolution :-)

The evolution argument has to be strong in science because there is no money in that area of science. If it was weak I could imagine a pile of scientists would knocking on various religion doors asking for research funding to falsify evolution. I mean for such a scientist the Nobel science prize, accolades and money from numerous churches and groups of thankful vestal virgins waits. Strangely no scientist has taken up the lucrative offer so I can only conclude that evolution must be very solid.

There has been a topical article about scientist Peter Higgs taking scientist Richard Dawkins to task about his anti-religion zealotry by Lubos Motl which is worth a read. My personal position is very close to Lubos's view that both extreme fundementalism are bad

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/richard-dawkins-vs-peter-higgs.html#more

I particually agree with this statement

Originally Posted By: Lubos Motl

Instead, my point is that I agree with Peter Higgs that people like Richard Dawkins are fundamentalists in a similar sense as the believers themselves – despite the fact that they are arguably right much more often than the believers (a comparison that may change as time goes by, however). The general character of answers to the "big questions" is always predetermined – and this comment applies to both of these opposing groups. Every statement that is positively correlated with the vague concept of God has to be supported by the obedient believers; and it has to be spitted upon by the politically correct anti-believers.

Whether or not the second attitude seems to be more successful in the incorporation of the scientific insights of the last 20 or 100 or 500 years, both of these approaches are equally fundamentalist – and both of them are intrinsically unscientific. Science isn't defined by its goal to show that every idea positively correlated with the vague concept of God is wrong much like science should never have been defined by its consistency with God. Science is simply independent of these prejudices – both of them and many others. Science impartially evaluates the empirical data and the right conclusions aren't and can't be determined a priori.



Thus science cares not whether there is a GOD or not as the presence of a GOD would change very little of any significance for science.

Last edited by Orac; 12/29/12 05:01 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.