I appreciated these points by Roberta Kwan. Atheists have no legitimate right to lay claims on any scientific evidence as proof of no God:
1. Modern science developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from Christian convictions.In particular, science arose from the belief, grounded in the Bible, that God is orderly, rational and trustworthy, and that his creation reflects his character. It is this belief that opened the way for the experimental, systematic study of God’s natural world, primarily by Christians, called ‘science’.
2. It is possible to be a respected scientist and a Christian. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are prominent examples from today and yesteryear.
3. By definition, the study of the supernatural is not an activity of science (which is the study of the mechanisms of the natural world). It’s not the task of science to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.
4. Atheism is not the inevitable conclusion of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution does not discredit or destroy belief in God and, specifically, Christianity. (Indeed, as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, Christianity stands on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and will only be destroyed if it is proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead. ‘… if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.’ (1 Corinthians 15:17))
5. Atheism is arguably a religion. The third definition of ‘religion’ in the 2007 edition of The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus is ‘a pursuit or interest that is very important to someone’. In this respect, the New Atheism could be called a religion as it is very important for its proponents to convince others to adhere to their pursuits. As Dawkins says, ‘I’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism’ . The language of New Atheism is that of religious rhetoric. Here is part of the highly-charged exhortation from their web site:
‘Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.’
The use of science to argue against religion has, in more ‘extreme’ cases, moved from a scientific argument to a religious one. John Lennox puts it succinctly:
‘I see the conflict as not between science and religion at all, it’s between two world views: atheism and theism …’