NOTE: This is a re-post from an earlier OP that was lost due to the recent crash of the host server for our blog. Since I didn’t keep a copy, this is a close reconstruction from memory as to what I originally wrote and the point I wanted to make. I believe Teleologist still has the orginal comments to this OP and will add them back in.
In his latest screed against religion and theism, The God Delusion, atheist crusader Richard Dawkins puts his full animosity towards religion in general and Christianity in particular on full display. In the second chapter, after spending several pages explaining while the late Stephen Gould’s concept of Non-Overlapping Magisterium (NOMA) was wrong and explaining why any concept of God ought to be just as subject to the methods of scientific investigation as anything else, Dawkins makes a rather startling declaration. He argues that a universe created and superintended by a deity would look vastly different from one that wasn’t. (I don’t have the book right here, but that’s pretty close to an exact quote.) What’s remarkable about the quote is that Dawkins having just spent several pages arguing why NOMA was wrong, and having been postively exultant about the efficacy of science to explain all things, offers not one whit of scientific confirmation for this startling hypothesis. To coin a phrase, he who fights with science, dies by science. Let’s hold the occupier of the Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science to his own standard. Where are his scientific research studies that confirm his hypothesis that a universe superintended and created by God would look different from one that wasn’t? In what peer reviewed scientific journals did he report his findings? Have the experiments been reproduced and reported on by others with similar results? Most especially I’d like to know how the experiment was constructed to test the hypothesis and what data would falsify it! After all, it’s all just about science, right? Unless, of course, you’re Richard Dawkins, then a simple argument from arrogance will do.