Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Skeptisch]

They do not think God exists and they hate him.

Wow, now we hate what does not exist! :clap

 

[1robin]

Wow, now we hate what does not exist! :clap

Yep the irony is quite absurd. That is actually a comment from a debate between a theist I can't remember and Hitchens (who I do like a lot but of course dissagree with). It was a pun on his book; God is not great. He only laughed but never dissagreed. BTW that was only a comment about what is known as militant atheists and they are a small minority. I think most atheists are sincere and genuine even if I find their contentions less so. Heck we all were atheists at one time.

 

[McBell]

Heck we all were atheists at one time.

Unless you belive that every single proposed deity exists, would you not be an atheist to at least some degree?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Matthew78,

Thanks for your response. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I actually have nothing more to add to what you said.

I do have one question though about your comments on Chomsky:

But Chomsky has been exposed as not just an ignorant hack-he has-but also as a liar.

Could you elaborate on this? My experience with Chomsky has been that he seems to make outlandish claims at first blush, but when you examine his facts, they are impossible to dispute.

 

[Warren Clark]

And again, you so completely miss the point. Craig is not being dismissed because he is Christian. I question his conclusions because they are simply pandering to his agenda which is immaterial to say the least. All Dawkins said was that he highly doubts that there is a god and Craig starts the usual creationist blathering of non-facts and then assumes he refuted Dawkins.

You can go on and on with your harebrained analogies and word walls. You still say the same thing you said pages ago. And if you think that you rationally refuted anything ever, then you need to hone your debating skills. All your allusions and red herrings are meaningless. Face it, creationism will never make any scientific sense, it matters not how much lipstick you want to put on that pig. It’s a pig.

Oh, by the way, I am not defending Dawkins, I merely take issue with creationists who make arguments based in faith and assume that people who deal in facts ought to fall all over themselves to agree with them.

I also think that those who act as if Dawkins is a guru of some sort that holds all atheists in thrall betrays willful ignorance. There is no monolithic atheist movement; we are not beholden to some leader and we do not hold all that many assumptions in common. Atheists are a heterogeneous assortment of people.

You say it is not because of his being a Christian and then say it is because he is making faith judgments not academic judgments. That is self-contradictory unless you engage in hair splitting semantics to find some reason to say very similar things are not identical. Your assertions that Craig was not making an academically justified critique are simply wrong. He is very professional and well respected. He used very simple and well founded reasons to show Dawkin's argument wrong on almost every level. He did not do so by quoting scripture or evoking faith he did so by the science of philosophy. If you wish to contend one of his responses that is reasonable to dismiss his entire argument with a claim of bias is absurd.
That is not what he said. This is: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist. What did you read or watch? His dismantling of Dawkin's nonsense is philosophy 101 and he said almost nothing about Biblical creation. Even the simplistic but absolute point I made weeks ago about demanding a cause for an uncaused concept or an infinite regression of causes is enough to just shut Dawkins argument down for good. What craig said was just icing on the cake. Craig is not in any way sensationalistic or unprofessional. It is impossible that his claim that Dawkins argument was the worst in western thought would have been made unless it indeed is deplorable. Any claims to the contrary arise from the bias you falsely accuse Craig of. It is very very simple why Dawkins argument does not work for anything, much less God. This rabid defense of a man that has no more qualifications in theology or philosophy than Billy Graham has in quantum physics is quite telling and desperate.
I have no need of additional words when the ones I have given still stand. Although I learned a new term (word wall is not bad). You cannot make claims that an explanation must be explained in order to be accepted. That is not even coherent much less logical and freshmen philosophy students know better.
Well when we actually discuss one of them then that may apply. This was purely philosophical at least on Craig's part, Dawkins part was simply rhetorical nonsense.
There is a organized group of atheist thought in academics. I do not suggest that it is very large nor includes even a meaningful fraction of common every day atheists. There is even a subset of the group described as militant atheists and I have heard many people question me about this modern phenomena. They do not think God exists and they hate him. I liked Hitchens very much but he was a leading member of that group. Dawkins being a GURU is evident by the unjustified and prolific defense of his absurd reasoning in a field he has no qualifications in, even in this thread alone. There is no other explanation for the venomous defense he has received here. We can tweak the terms a bit but the concept is justified by reality. He is not just wrong he is absurdly wrong yet defended with a vengeance. Of course this is an exaggeration but it kind of reminds me of Gollum and his precious.

So we should just take the child with the bathwater and throw it all out.

When you hear "We do not believe in God because there is no reason yet to believe", you translate it to "God is stupid and fake". You then in turn vomit, regurgitating every apologetic statement about the subject with out caring for what it even means or how it sounds when you say it.

God is NOT stupid or fake or mean. This is because God is NOT.
If I said God is stupid, I would first have to present this God to you.
I cannot.
Unless we use the same system you use to prove God.

So if I did use your analysis to present my argument for there first being a God, I would then use that analysis and all the said "evidence" with it to prove that God is in fact stupid.

Of course as scientists (which you can be one too), we don't put words together to make god sound good for our own personal agenda.
We recognize that if there was a God, it is not conscious or is rather just a dick and left us to suffer. In the end whatever God is, its nothing to ask for forgiveness or feel guilty towards...

There is just no proof for those who carry the burden of proof. In this case it is the person who makes the claim there is something specific in existence.

 

[1robin]

So we should just take the child with the bathwater and throw it all out.

I do not know what this means or why it was posted. I said that Dawkins is a net negative on the debate. His argumentation of the issue of theology is a waste of time. I do not know what Babies and bathwater have to do with it. No one would think Graham should be on the discrete mathematics circuit or Mother Theresa on the quantum physics trail. I wish Dawkins was as humble as they are (were).

When you hear "We do not believe in God because there is no reason yet to believe", you translate it to "God is stupid and fake". You then in turn vomit, regurgitating every apologetic statement about the subject without caring for what it even means or how it sounds when you say it.

No I don't and no I didn't, and that is not what Dawkin’s said. He did not say we have no evidence as of yet and so make no decision. Even though there is evidence and he has made a decision. He said: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
1. Even if true that would not follow from his ridiculous argument to which this was the absurd conclusion.
2. There is far more evidence for God than string theory, multiverses, abiogenesis, oscillating verses, or any of about a hundred things used as arguments against God yet they are taught in colleges.
3. I did not arrive at the claim that atheists assert belief in God is based in ignorance over-night or from Dawkins argument we have been discussing alone. However when someone writes a book as ridiculous as the "God delusion" it is not hard to see that he believes I am delusional.
4. Maybe if even a small fraction of the amount of people who care about God cared about multiverse fantasies then someone would write the multiverses are a delusion and then there would be rioting in the M.I.T streets. Even Penrose, Hawking’s collaborator said M-theory and multiverses are an excuse for not having a theory.
5. What I claim is so prevalent there has been a label assigned to it "militant atheism" and if you do not believe it exists then you are delusional.

God is NOT stupid or fake or mean. This is because God is NOT.

You have taken significant time to try your best to insist that atheists only claim that evidence doesn't exist for God (which is preposterous) and then you wreck the tale you spent so much time weaving and simply say he does not exist. You counter your own statements. There is not much input from me necessary.

If I said God is stupid, I would first have to present this God to you.
I cannot.
Unless we use the same system you use to prove God.

I never said you claimed God was stupid.

So if I did use your analysis to present my argument for there first being a God, I would then use that analysis and all the said "evidence" with it to prove that God is in fact stupid.

Yet I see if I had said that I would have been right. Tell Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Sandage, Ellington, Greenleaf, ad-infinitum that you think the faith they had was stupid, I do not think I will be so arrogant.

Of course as scientists (which you can be one too), we don't put words together to make god sound good for our own personal agenda.

No scientists invent stupid theories without a shred of evidence to dismiss his. By the way not even close to all and very few of the best scientists agree with you.

We recognize

Who is we? I can give you page after page of the greatest scientists in history who were also Christians.

that if there was a God, it is not conscious or is rather just a dick and left us to suffer. In the end whatever God is, it’s nothing to ask for forgiveness or feel guilty towards...

That must explain why he is the most cherished entity in human history, wrote the greatest book in history, inspired more songs, more poetry, more paintings, and contains the only perfect example of human conduct in history. You’re characterizing him as a dick has now elevated or demoted your claims from the lofty height of just plain wrong to the level of the sarcastic nonsense and renders the attempts to claim otherwise as disingenuous on your part.

There is just no proof for those who carry the burden of proof. In this case it is the person who makes the claim there is something specific in existence.

Faith has no burden of proof. To claim I believe God exists does not demand I offer any proof. While short of being absolute proof there is an inexhaustible amount of evidence which is more than can be said for large sections of science.

 

[Warren Clark]

I do not know what this means or why it was posted. I said that Dawkins is a net negative on the debate. His argumentation of the issue of theology is a waste of time. I do not know what Babies and bathwater have to do with it. No one would think Graham should be on the discrete mathematics circuit or Mother Theresa on the quantum physics trail. I wish Dawkins was as humble as they are (were).

I would however expect them to speak up if scientists were testing on live human test subjects and encouraging the extermination of a particular group and a leader that indoctrinate a civilization that it is morally sounds.

He did not say we have no evidence as of yet and so make no decision. Even though there is evidence and he has made a decision. He said: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

May I see where you are quoting him.
Every time there is a discussion about the existence of God it would be "Most likely not", "no evidence", etc.
he has admitted to being agnostic in a sense but takes an atheistic role because he is technically atheist since he does not believe there is a god. He doesn't claim to know for sure whether there is a god.

I did not arrive at the claim that atheists assert belief in God is based in ignorance over-night or from Dawkins argument we have been discussing alone. However when someone writes a book as ridiculous as the "God delusion" it is not hard to see that he believes I am delusional.

Hurt feelings over being called delusional?
You weren't and are not the only one.
Its a book that takes a militant approach about religious superstitions and the overwhelming indoctrination of said superstitions.

4. Maybe if even a small fraction of the amount of people who care about God cared about multiverse fantasies then someone would write the multiverses are a delusion and then there would be rioting in the M.I.T streets. Even Penrose, Hawking’s collaborator said M-theory and multiverses are an excuse for not having a theory.

The Multiverse Theory is just a fun theory to think about for the public while some astro-physicists developed it to give an explanation for how particles act bizarre like, as they come in and out of seemingly no where.

5. What I claim is so prevalent there has been a label assigned to it "militant atheism" and if you do not believe it exists then you are delusional.

It is militant atheism to the extent that we are not okay with letting a teacher tell a kid that scientists don't know the metric system and got evolution and the time of the earth's existence wrong. All while they think they know science.

Most scientists (98% approx.) are either non-theists. that means they lack any real belief in a supernatural entity.

Project Steve

You have taken significant time to try your best to insist that atheists only claim that evidence doesn't exist for God (which is preposterous) and then you wreck the tale you spent so much time weaving and simply say he does not exist. You counter your own statements. There is not much input from me necessary.

I am stating my view.
In my view God does not exist. Therefore I cannot say that He is stupid, because I would then insinuate that he does in fact exist.
I never said that God was stupid. I was just explaining the difference in not believing in God and talking about a god if it were to exist. =P

Yet I see if I had said that I would have been right. Tell Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Sandage, Ellington, Greenleaf, ad-infinitum that you think the faith they had was stupid, I do not think I will be so arrogant.

What do they have to do with anything?
If they worshipped a god every sunday, then yeah they were delusional too.
If someone said they were instilled with the spirit (which I often hear) I think they are most definitely delusional. There is always a rational answer. Whether we know it or not.

No scientists invent stupid theories without a shred of evidence to dismiss his. By the way not even close to all and very few of the best scientists agree with you.

Scientists don't have an agenda, other than to gain better understanding of our universe. It is not their fault there is no evidence for God's existence.

Who is we? I can give you page after page of the greatest scientists in history who were also Christians.

Me and the mouse in my pocket... along with many other atheists.
Refer to Project Steve as mentioned above.

That must explain why he is the most cherished entity in human history, wrote the greatest book in history, inspired more songs, more poetry, more paintings, and contains the only perfect example of human conduct in history. You’re characterizing him as a dick has now elevated or demoted your claims from the lofty height of just plain wrong to the level of the sarcastic nonsense and renders the attempts to claim otherwise as disingenuous on your part.

The whole point of the God Delusion. A lot of people has bought into it because it inspires hope. But it is a false hope that is comforting to people but is in turn hurting people because people have become so delusional.
I wouldn't jump off a cliff if everyone else told me it was the fast track to heaven. So why would I worship a God for the same reason?

Faith has no burden of proof. To claim I believe God exists does not demand I offer any proof. While short of being absolute proof there is an inexhaustible amount of evidence which is more than can be said for large sections of science.

Faith is the opposite of reason. Burden of Proof doesn't exist for faith because faith is the substitute for reason. This just makes a person that uses faith in place of reason look like a dimwit. Especially when they say they don't need reason because they have faith.
Ignorance is no excuse to act stupid.

This faith is why television evangelists make so much money.
Argument as such enable them.
It is sickening.

 

[McBell]

I never did understand why some people get all up in arms about proof and evidence when some one makes a claim exactly opposite of what they wish to believe and then argue that the most said someone should do is take a position of neutrality whilst they sit back and wallow in the same boat of lacking proof and evidence fr their exact opposite claim.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

Back up the fallacy train here. Fallacies are extremely over used by anti-Bible folks. They are almost crutches for the lack of a counter claim many times. It is indeed a fallacy to say X is true because a number of authorities believe it. That is not what I claimed. I said the issue is reasonable (not dismissible) or intellectually permissible and illustrated that by showing the most brilliant among us have been believers. I resent any one implying that faith is the result of ignorance or stupidity and I see it all the time from very arrogant people.

The brightest people in the world are still ignorant on many subjects and will tell you so themselves. Being intelligent does not immunize one from being ignorant.

Further the smartest people are probably best at rationalizing and expressing their beliefs whether they are factual or fictional.

Ultimately you are fighting for your own personal Jesus belief system and keep fighting if it amuses you. It is entirely unconvincing though.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why smart people are stupid: Why Smart People Are Stupid : The New Yorker

 

[Ouroboros]

Wow, now we hate what does not exist! :clap

Yes! I hate things that do not exist. I hate them for it. Hate them. Hate them. If they just could exist so I could hate them for existing, it would be better.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Someone said of Edmund Burke that his wisdom exceeded his eloquence. It seems William Lane Craig has the reverse problem.

 

[atanu]

----
We recognize that if there was a God, it is not conscious or is rather just a dick and left us to suffer. In the end whatever God is, its nothing to ask for forgiveness or feel guilty towards...

There is just no proof for those who carry the burden of proof. In this case it is the person who makes the claim there is something specific in existence.

Warren

I find that odd. We recognize (how that happens we yet do not know) that God is not conscious.

Note: Texts within brackets mine.

 

[1robin]

Yes! I hate things that do not exist. I hate them for it. Hate them. Hate them. If they just could exist so I could hate them for existing, it would be better.

You mean like this illusive but all mighty scientific evidence against the Bible. Or maybe Dawkin’s competence in either theology or philosophy?

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement Amazon LoC GP
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107

 

[Simurgh]

You mean like this illusive but all mighty scientific evidence against the Bible. Or maybe Dawkin’s competence in either theology or philosophy?

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement Amazon LoC GP
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107

You still go on about Dawkins and his credentials as a philosopher and theologian. Has he ever stated he was either? Has he even mentioned that he is interested in theological debates? Why are you always diverting from an issue just to beat up on Dawkins. If he vexes you that much, then he clearly pushes you out of your comfort zone and you don't like to question your own assumptions about what ought to be. And still, that should not be Dawkins' problem.

You use Jastrow as an example of a reputable scientist? The same Jastrow who denied that tobacco has ill effects, denied that global warming is a real threat and was co-founder of a conservative think tank played along with the Bush (Baby Bush) admin in its ostrich policies and lets-pretend that throwing- missiles-at-a-problem-will-help approach to global politics.

Oh, and then he is a creationist on top of that. No wonder he had problems with reality. BTW, Jastrow died in 2008. Why not use a quote from a less biased scientist who has not been dead for five years? Quoting creationists to counter scientific data is just laughable, and disingenuous to say the least.

 

[1robin]

You still go on about Dawkins and his credentials as a philosopher and theologian. Has he ever stated he was either? Has he even mentioned that he is interested in theological debates? Why are you always diverting from an issue just to beat up on Dawkins. If he vexes you that much, then he clearly pushes you out of your comfort zone and you don't like to question your own assumptions about what ought to be. And still, that should not be Dawkins' problem.

For goodness sakes this is a Dawkins thread. Dawkin's sure as heck debates as one with authority on these issues. He writes books on them, and hog's any camera time he can get to illustrate his rejection of faith. There are many atheists’ even virulent ones that I love to listen to like Hitchens. It isn't Dawkin's capability that "vexes" me it is his incompetence. I love good arguments for their own sake and he is completely destitute of any. He is the Sahara desert of theology.

You use Jastrow as an example of a reputable scientist? The same Jastrow who denied that tobacco has ill effects, denied that global warming is a real threat and was co-founder of a conservative think tank played along with the Bush (Baby Bush) admin in its ostrich policies and lets-pretend that throwing- missiles-at-a-problem-will-help approach to global politics.

I did not suggest that this man was a tower of omniscience like Dawkin's is claimed to be however NASA approves and any incompetence in other areas (if they exist) does not make this claim by him wrong. I notice as usual you shoot the messenger instead of even attempting a rebuttal.

Oh, and then he is a creationist on top of that. No wonder he had problems with reality. BTW, Jastrow died in 2008. Why not use a quote from a less biased scientist who has not been dead for five years? Quoting creationists to counter scientific data is just laughable, and disingenuous to say the least.

If I can't use a creationist for creation then you can't use an evolutionist for evolution. Claiming he has been dead for five years is an even more impotent argument than he has faith. He is one of hundreds of sources I have provided in this forum. Shooting at this one to no affect has no effect on the claim or the messenger. In fact there is no known exception to the claim that life only comes from life. Shoot at reality for a while, and good luck.

 

[Warren Clark]

Warren

I find that odd. We recognize (how that happens we yet do not know) that God is not conscious.

Note: Texts within brackets mine.

Dawkins and a few other atheists I have read of have admitted the possibility of there being a god, most likely being that of deist's.
It is not logical to say that there is an all loving, merciful and all powerful god that allows its beloved creatures to perish in vane.
But there is no proof of any God existing at all, so we remain still with no admiration or belief in any god.

 

[Simurgh]

For goodness sakes this is a Dawkins thread. Dawkin's sure as heck debates as one with authority on these issues. He writes books on them, and hog's any camera time he can get to illustrate his rejection of faith. There are many atheists’ even virulent ones that I love to listen to like Hitchens. It isn't Dawkin's capability that "vexes" me it is his incompetence. I love good arguments for their own sake and he is completely destitute of any. He is the Sahara desert of theology.

Yeah, the thread is called “Is Dawkins a good scientist?” The question is not is he a good theologian and/or philosopher. So why always try to argue that non-point? In his books and his talks he debates issues from the scientific perspective, he does not argue from faith. That’s the difference you don’t seem to get. He does not try to make any arguments about theology, he merely defends his position that as long as there is no proof that a god exists, it is not on him to prove the negative, since it is already in evidence.

His books are popular, so? His talks are well attended, so? If people did not like his work, they would not bother buying the books or going to for a he participates in.

I did not suggest that this man was a tower of omniscience like Dawkin's is claimed to be however NASA approves and any incompetence in other areas (if they exist) does not make this claim by him wrong. I notice as usual you shoot the messenger instead of even attempting a rebuttal.

When did Dawkins ever claim omniscience? You keep making him into something bigger than he claims to be and that is hardly his fault. And that former NASA scientist is just another creationist who claimed something not in evidence, and denied scientific facts because they did not fit his agenda. Just because he once worked for NASA means little and does not confer authority on him. Why would I then refute any statement he makes about how his god created anything. I am an atheist, I refute all of that creationist claptrap. All of it. There is no reason to go into details about his opinions and beliefs. Why would I argue those? They were his, not mine and why waste time on an argument about a man’s opinions? Makes no sense. He stated nothing that holds up to scientific scrutiny in the quote you posted.

If I can't use a creationist for creation then you can't use an evolutionist for evolution. Claiming he has been dead for five years is an even more impotent argument than he has faith. He is one of hundreds of sources I have provided in this forum. Shooting at this one to no affect has no effect on the claim or the messenger. In fact there is no known exception to the claim that life only comes from life. Shoot at reality for a while, and good luck.

I mentioned that he has been dead for five years because I would think you can come up with someone better, and quote something that is less than40 years old, since that quote is from a book published in the 70s. And what does “life comes only from life“ mean in this context anyhow?
And the reality you are referring to? Is that your dreamscape where gods micromanage humanity or ignore them as the case may be?

 

[Matthew78]

Matthew78,

Thanks for your response. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I actually have nothing more to add to what you said.

I do have one question though about your comments on Chomsky:
Could you elaborate on this? My experience with Chomsky has been that he seems to make outlandish claims at first blush, but when you examine his facts, they are impossible to dispute.

Mr. Spinkles, forgive my delay; a few things got in the way of responding right away. But, in response to what you asked about Chomsky, I do have evidence that he has lied. More than just once. The best critic that I know of, who has caught Chomsky in several lies, is Oliver Kamm. Chomsky made the statement that what America needs is a sort of "denazification" and then lied about it. Kamm debunks it here: Oliver Kamm: Chomsky recollects

Another instance of a lie that Chomsky was caught in was exposed by Oliver Kamm right here: Oliver Kamm: Chomsky and the Vietnam War - a study in propaganda

There are a number of other lies that I am convinced that Chomsky has told and I can try to find the links for you but these are the best two that I know of.

 

[Looncall]

You mean like this illusive but all mighty scientific evidence against the Bible. Or maybe Dawkin’s competence in either theology or philosophy?

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement Amazon LoC GP
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107

The difference between the two theories is that only one can be tested. Guess which?

The fact that you can find some outdated author who did not know something is not evidence that it will never be known. That style of arguing by quotation is inane.