Originally Posted by LaMont Cranston

3dnow, As a young man, I was something of a math and science, particularly chemistry, whiz, but when I went off to college, I decided to pass on a career in the sciences. Although I still have a great appreciation of the sciences, I have also developed interests in such things as spirituality, religion, history, philosophy, the nature of consciousness, utopian communities, love and other subjects.

In my ongoing quest for information, I have joined a number of online forums dedicated to Christianity, atheism, lifestyles, spirituality, etc., and I continue to be an enthusiastic student of life. After considering everything, I still think that there is a higher power/energy/intention/force/consciousness/whatever that I call God.

I have run into many people who want to put science on a pedestal and assign attributes to science that it clearly doesn't deserve. For starters, I am constantly reminded at how little science can actually really explain, much less prove. There is an attitude that is offered up that sounds something like "Well, yes, science only has answers for certain things right now, but if we have faith in science, somebody it might have more answers for us." Doesn't that sound a lot like what the religious folks have to offer up?

Yes, the scientific method is a wonderful thing, but in actual practice in the real world, science is filled with human error, backstabbing colleagues who will steal research, influence of special interests and quite a few other things. Science, on its pedestal, may be a very pure thing, but in actual practice, it is quite flawed, and, often, given to a certain kind of thinking in which scientists ignore many ideas and concepts without really considering them.

I've got to say, many of the religious folks and the would-be spiritual types don't help the ongoing discussions by denying evolution and by offering up a plethora of new age, self help, human potential, get well mumbo jumbo. I believe that a God exists, but if God created everything, is it so hard to get next to the idea that God created the evolutionary process?

Science hardly makes God unnecessary, at least until such time that science can offer a much better case for the so-called "clear-thinking, rational, scientific" world view. It's easy for non-believers to demand evidence from others, but, funny thing, those same non-believers have absolutely no evidence to offer up themselves. (Yes, I'm familiar with that thing about not being able to prove a negative.)

After considering everything (an ongoing process), I still think God exists, and I can make a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case that works for me. Even if it were true that science makes God unnecessary, the question of whether or not God exists is not about what is necessary, it is about what is.