Originally posted by aphexcoil
The entire debate is pretty futile since there can be no winners or losers. Actually, several hundred pages ago, someone mentioned the book, "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (for a perspective of how life can exist without a creator). Well, I've read that book and Dawkins book is pretty dry and many details are lacking.
First of all, what right does a Zoologist have in ontology and biology? This guy reaches some conclusions that are far-reaching and outright obsurd.
I'd rather hear it from the brightest minds in the field, like Francis Collings, who is the lead scientist for the Human Genome Project and is open about his faith.
Others, who have shown flaws with neo-Darwinian processes, include David Berlinksi and William Dembeski -- both Princeton educated mathematicians.
Then you have John Polkinghorne retiring from Mathematical Physics to become an Anglican priest.
A lot of people say most scientists are atheists, but actually, if you sample the REALLY smart ones, you'll find a lot of them are open to religion and admit that science can't tackle all of these issues.
As far as I'm concerned, there is too much structure and design around me to dismiss the possibility of a god. I can't prove god's existence, but I most certainly know god cannot be disproven with science and that my own beliefs seem to suit me very well.