Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

Hi Holmes,This may be a little off topic, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your main premise that: It seems to me that linking theism and science (that is, incorporating a theistic world view into a scientific enterprise) is a terribly inconsistent thing to do, for the simple reason that science cannot falsify theistic hypotheses. Most practicing religious scientists seem to agree with me, finding it necessary to divide their intellectual lives between the "imperium of science" and the "imperium of religion", and never the twain shall meet.Linking atheism and science, on the other hand, is not at all inconsistent, since scientists who do not believe in God will propose materialistic, naturalistic hypotheses that are subject to experimental falsification.I don't understand why somebody would think that atheism and theism are on an equal footing should they be "linked to" science. Neither do most scientists. According to a poll in 1998, around 95% of biologist members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.That is because atheism is consistent with the scientific process, while theism is not.MickEdited by mick, : typo

Hi Holmes,Thanks for replying. I have a great deal of sympathy for your stance but I'm not sure i agree with everything you say. However I will need to read a little more before putting together a worthy reply, and I may well set up a new thread on "scientific atheism" where this can be discussed outside the context of Richard Dawkins.CheersMick