Excuse me? Your agenda's showing.

I'm currently reading "The Science of Discworld III", which is about evolution (it's kind of a science-lite book for people who like the Discworld). In the first two books in the series, I recall having the impression that the authors of the science-y part of the book were distinctly atheist in outlook but that they were trying really hard to provide an objective commentary.

In the third book, I'm quite certain that they are atheists, look down somewhat on those of us who maintain such quaint notions as the belief in the existence of God, and are trying, but failing, to hide their prejudices. Which is unfortunate, since evolution is a fascinating subject, and the debate about it is really quite interesting. However, it is sadly ruined by a lot of muddled thinking on the parts of just about everyone in the debate, which makes any sensible discourse impossible.

Oh well.

The truth is, I have no interest in debating the existence of God. It cannot be proven (or disproven) by science, which means that the matter comes down to faith; you believe or you do not. The believer might choose to demonstrate the existence of God by pointing out the incredible richness of the universe; the sceptic can equally point out that it is entirely possible that this all came about by chance. (Some Christians have tried to provide a 'scientific' probability of the universe spontaneously forming. The odds are apparently 1 in a Very Big Number. Sadly, this just shows more muddled thinking, since (a) not all of the odds required in the calculation are even known, so the VBN is at best hideously inaccurate, (b) we don't know how many times the atoms in the universe have been scattered, which may not be 1, which makes the probability impossible to determine, and (c) in any event, unless the odds work out to exactly 0, all you've proven is that the universe was very lucky, not that it couldn't have happened.)

What's rather more interesting is a debate about the consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. However, that's a debate for another time.

I always cringe inwardly when science is brought up in church, generally to back some point made in a sermon. Usually, the science is referenced by people who don't understand it, and they invariably get it wrong. Which is a wonderful way to destroy the credibility of the point you're trying to make - if you back it up with idiotic science, that then implies that perhaps the rest of what you're saying is equally idiotic.

It seems I must now cringe inwardly whenever scientists (who are also sceptics) start discussing the existence or non-existence of God. It seems they are just as blinkered and foolish.

In the meantime, I'll take comfort in knowing that I can just about converse on either subject without routinely making idiotic mistakes.

(Oh, since I'm on the subject, about Creationism in American schools. I'll just say that Creationism most definately has a place in the American school system... in a philosophy class. It most assuredly is not science, and has no business being taught in a science class.)