I mean really?

 

'A More Respectable Hypothesis

In their books, television interviews, YouTube videos, and lectures, the New Atheist and others have assured millions that scientific evidence, especially as it concerns the origin of life and the universe, supports a materialist or atheistic outlook. They have claimed or assumed, as Sean Carol and Michael Shermer have done, that the fundamental laws of nature alone will prove sufficient to explain the most salient features of life and the universe. They have argued, as Richard Dawkins has done, that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose less indifference." nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

But the evidence examined so far suggests the need to reassess such claims. That the universe had a beginning, that it was finely tuned from the beginning, and that our planet has experienced dramatic discontinuous increases in biological form and information since the beginning are not at what proponents of a naturalistic worldview would most "naturally" expect. Yet theists might well expect evidence of such discontinuity and Theism does, in any case, offer causally adequate explanations for the origin and fine tuning of the universe and the origin of biological formation. Consequently, many scientists and philosophers have begun to question a default commitment to scientific materialism and to sider what physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne has called "a new natural theology." As the historian of science Frederic Burnham observed, "the God hypothesis "is now a more respectable hypothesis than any time in the last one hundred years." Or as astronomer Allan Sandage commented in 1985, "If God did not exist, science would have invent the concept to explain what it is discovering."

Like I told my son years ago:

The New Atheist are not saying anything new.

They are just louder and more vocal than in the past.

And it's probably because:

"...the evidence examined so far suggests the need to reassess such claims. That the universe had a beginning, that it was finely tuned from the beginning, and that our planet has experienced dramatic discontinuous increases in biological form and information since the beginning are not at what proponents of a naturalistic worldview would most "naturally" expect."

Sux for them...

"the God hypothesis "

is now a more respectable hypothesis than any time in the last one hundred years."

I'm just gonna keep hammering on this point:

WHY DO YOU THINK ITS  HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?