In which [he] refuse an invitation to the World Science Festival on grounds of accommodationism.

The second consideration is that the festival is being supported by The Templeton Foundation. I absolutely believe you when you say that there are no strings attached, and that the Foundation is not exercising any editorial judgement. But this is not the issue. The issue is that, by saying it sponsors the Festival, the Templeton Foundation will use its sponsorship to prove that it is engaging in serious discussion with scientists. Like many of my colleagues, I regard Templeton as an organization whose purpose is to fuse science with religion: to show how science illuminates “the big questions” and how religion can contribute to science. I regard this as not only fatuous, but dangerous. Templeton likes nothing better than to corral real working scientists into its conciliatory pen. I don’t want to be one of these. That’s just a matter of principle. But the “no strings” argument doesn’t wash for me, for precisely the same reason that congressmen are not supposed to take gifts from people whose legislation they could influence. It is the appearance of conflict that is at issue.

See why I like him

Si on cherchait des indices indirects de l’approche foireuse de la John Templeton Foundation, on peut regarder qui a obtenu leur grand prix cette année : Bernard d’Espagnat

Si on cherchait des indices indirects de l’approche foireuse de Bernard d’Espagnat, on peut regarder qui lui a attribué son grand prix cette année : la John Templeton Foundation re-

Ca se mord la queue. Franchement hilarant, non ?

Une façon comme une autre, pour la John Templeton Foundation, pour injecter de l’argent à l’environnement de l’Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris pour soutenir le néo-créationnisme en Europe.

Via

Seeing and Believing

The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail.

Jerry A. Coyne, The New Republic

Jerry Coyne signe un essai pas mal construit, une attaque à l’acide darwinien face aux essais (pitoyables IMO) pour réconcilier Science et Religions. Appuyé sur deux des productions de la John Templeton Foundation, publiées par Karl W. Giberson et Kenneth R. Miller.

Il conclue :

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence–the existence of religious scientists–is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

De l’huile sur le feu, j’aime ça, les flammes éclairent la situation.

I suspect that the title in Nature an editorial choice : Atheism could be science’s contribution to religion, based on the final phrase of Cobb’s and Coyne’s letter (below the fold and link):

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

That’s quite different, I mean “religion” and “ideas of religion” don’t equate. Make it sound as atheism is conceptually close to religions. It isn’t.
I changed it for my post, making it more close to Cobb’s and Coyne’s point of view, I think.

Matthew Cobb & Jerry Coyne

Sir

We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation (‘Templeton’s legacy’ Nature 454, 253–254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world — explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.

Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe. (The same is true of religion’s poor cousin, ’spirituality’, which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses ‘intelligent design’.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.

The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world’s belief systems.

Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or ’spirituality’) any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about “advances in theological thinking”. In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

I wonder why they didn’t used “God-created Universe” instead of “God-built Universe“, creationism doesn’t sound well, but we are used to it, what would be the replacement? Builtationists?

I think both lost the point. JTF is not interested about big question, but rather about Big Questions, in the very same way believers do not believe to god, but to God. Capitalization is capital here. That may explain why JTF (or any other religion driven enterprise) will never try to understand “why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things“. This is not a Big Question, this is a big question.
Or maybe it is that the two fellows are asking to consider “the rise and fall of the world’s belief systems“! The rise would be probably OK to consider, much better if a few angels and demons are joining the party, but the fall! Only an atheist or everybody else without the same beliefs could think of that. What an ill conceived perspective

update added at the end of this post

1. Honorable people doesn’t practice censorship and/or heavily truncate comments left on their website.
2. John Templeton Foundation’s people practice censorship and/or text truncation
3. John Templeton Foundation’s people aren’t honorable

A couple of days ago I posted a commentary to JTF’s website, at the “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” page. The commentaries are moderated before publishing and mine was published almost 24 h later. It was slightly modified, the title (which I hadn’t provided) being added: RE: Kenneth Miller. OK, I had Ken Miller’s answer in mind, but I gave my comment a more general take.

That isn’t a problem. But latter, they edited my text, taking out what they didn’t like, leaving a reconstructed paragraph that I never wrote!

Quite the same kind of censorship one could expect from DaveScot at Uncommon Descent. Now, on your screens from John Templeton Foundation people. Enjoy.

Out of context! Truncated to their convenience. Not even the warning one could expect from an editor when editing is necessary, and they do have my e-mail address, you know, just the usual “required field”.

Can one trust that kind of people? I think not.

I was wondering, how comes the JTF is supporting local (French) neo-creationists censoring negative comments. Now I know, same kind of people.

Do I need to say that I’m pissed-off?

For before/after screen captures go here

Just sent this mail :

To: Webmaster Templeton.org

Cc : Pamela P. Thompson (as Vice President for Communications), Clio A. Mallin (as Communications Coordinator), Charles Harper (hoping that this will not be considered as a minor mistake) and Kenneth Miller (my comment being labeled by JTFs staff as RE: Kenneth Miller)

Sir,

A recently posted comment at the “http://www.templeton.org/belief/” page of JTF’s website, a “Templeton Conversation” about “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” was heavily edited.
I didn’t received any notification about the changes of the content of my message (and yes, I did checked the spam folder of my e-mailer, just in case).
The result is quite afar from my argument. You can check Before/After screen capture at http://oldcola.googlepages.com/johntempletonfoundation%27seditingcapacity

The behavior is unacceptable. A conversation isn’t possible if you reserve the right to edit comments as you like to make them soft and hide critics. The name of such behavior is censorship. Worse than censorship. It would be just censorship if you just had deleted the comment. There is also manipulation of my phrases out of context.

There are two alternatives:
1 – You restore my comment at it’s initial content, and in this case there is a possible conversation.
2 – You delete the reconstructed comment as it does not correspond to my opinion. ASAP.

Whatever your decision, the case was posted at the Web already, and I’ll take care to publicize the way the JTF conceives the term “Conversation”. [http://coffeeandsci.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/john-templeton-foundation-censorship/]

Please, keep me informed,

Antoine Vekris

PS copy will be included at http://coffeeandsci.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/john-templeton-foundation-censorship/

Update 23 april 2008, 20:00 CEST

Charles Harper replied to my message and he forwarded it to the competent persons. Thank you Dr Harper.
Gary, from the JTF, contacted be to explain the situation he created by editing my comment. He is the one guilty and he apologies for. He deleted the comment (option 2). I would like to thank him publicly for doing so. Below the fold my reply to his message.

Dear Garry,

Thank you for explanation concerning the censored comment.

As far as I can see, other comments may be also edited and/or non accepted. Your movement with mine make the presumption plausible.

I don’t see what is the erroneous information you mention. I clearly say that “JTF’s activity seems to fit the definition of scienligion, a softer than the ID creationism, denying the characterization of creationism, say as Miller, a roman catholic christian, who’s credo is a God creator of the universe”. Nothing her to suggest that JTF supports ID. But clearly suggesting support for creationism, as per definition the credo to a god creator of the universe.
And you made my suggestion of denial from your part of the characterization ‘creationist’ a little bit stronger with your action. For this, and just for this point, I would like to thank you.

Usually, in a conversation, when something looks fuzzy, people ask for clarification, they do not just remodel the sayings of other people as they like it to be.

I do understand that you wouldn’t like being considered as YECs or ID creationists, but the JTF movement is creationist, promoting the idea of a creator. Ken Miller, for example, is an evolutionary creationist (theistic evolutionist).
But I don’t like people thinking at my place and mixing my phrases as they think adequate. So, now you personally, fall in this category of people I don’t like.

Your new “version” is unacceptable. I do prefer clear censorship rather than reinterpretations. So, no need to put your point of view under my name. The original or nothing.

Please, keep me, and maybe Charles Harper, informed about your decision.

The new version being:

“Revealed” knowledge fails to fit with real knowledge and has been transformed progressively into myths. Some organized religions even acknowledge that their own “revelations” are mythical, and yet they still make claims about truth.

Science has contributed to exposing the self-contradictions and flawed logic of religion, but the inconsistencies were always there, so I don’t think that science deserves praise or blame for this.

An irritating novelty in this regard is the effort to justify faith using science. I call this approach “scienligious.” The activity of the Templeton Foundation seems to fit this definition, and Kenneth Miller, who is a Roman Catholic, states its credo: there is a God Creator of the universe.

Being “scientific” is a more praised label than being “religious,” but for a believer like Miller to prefer to be scientific rather than religious makes it seem that gods (and religions) are obsolete, doesn’t it?

New message by Garry, and my response (23 april 2008, 22:27 CEST) below:

Dear Garry,

I exchanged a few words with Dr Miller and it appears he doesn’t like the term “theistic evolutionist”. Avoid to call him so in the future. I will keep “evolutionary creationist”: evolutionary to clearly remind his combat against anti-evolutionists (e.g. the Discovery Institute), creationist to remind his credo, mentioning a God Creator.
I would find insulting for him, for anybody declaring to be a catholic christian actually, to doubt his professed credo [We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen... http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm]
And I don’t like much people who declaim this credo in church and try to hide their creationism once outside. In fact I don’t like hypocrisy.

I’m not in the public relations business, so the confusion made by people about “creationist” and “anti-evolutionist” (where evolution is the actual scientific theory of evolution) is not relevant for me. I do understand that JTF work hard to counter anti-evolutionists, and had the opportunity to read a lot about that. But the JTF is promoting creationism anyway.
The distinction must be clear between the creationism JTF promotes and the one promoted by Creation Science or the Discovery Institute; your burden, to make it clear. Personally, I always make the distinction, using either “soft creationism” or “neo-creationism” to describe it, like in: “JTF’s activity seems to fit the definition of scienligion, a softer than the ID creationism, denying the characterization of creationism…“

I’m going with the dictionary, you are going with the public opinion.
I’m trying to educate my few readers that there is a continuum of creationist approaches, you are afraid to face the fact that you promote some kind of creationism.
I’m insisting in accuracy, you seem to adopt the public’s by ignorance issued opinion.

I wouldn’t be happy to work with you on my comment.

Let’s consider the discussion closed. I think it would be a waste of time for both of us.
You may use it to clearly state on the “Templeton Conversation” web pages that comments that don’t fit your (the JTF’s) opinions and/or strategy will be banned.
I will use it to discuss your censorship policy. And my understanding of the word “conversation”.

There is a conversation at JTF’s website, one of those “Big Questions” that replaced the “Science & Religion” slogan : Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Well, that smells like “Science & Religion” after all, isn’t it?
For the short version, click the image. For the long one, continue the reading here.

The answers range from “Yes, if by…” to “No, but only if…“. If the scienligions’ affairs interest you, have a read, it’s quite informative and the answers are kept relatively short.

I shorted out the one from Kenneth Miller. I like the guy, as he have be distinguished fighting the Creation Science and Intelligent Design Creationism, but, unfortunately, only to replace them with a softer creationism, less political for the moment (and so more politically correct) and much more consilient with the mainstream science. And it happens to be a friend of my favorite french neocreationist, Jean Staune, also working (funded by) for the JTF.

Miller’s opinion, “Of course not” seems, to me, to be typically the official position of the JTF. Not only the short version, but the justification of his thesis fits nicely with the necessity to avoid frontal confrontations between science and religion, the historical record demonstrating that usually the winner is Science, if firm repression from religious establishments is not employed. And not only repression can’t be hold for long periods or at every place on the planet (a quite small planet those days), but it’s quite bad for public relations and the negative impression persist even several centuries after the facts.

Let’s see/comment the explanations given by Miller.

Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God. Rather, it gives us a window on a dynamic and creative universe that expands our appreciation of the Divine in ways that could not have been imagined in ages past.

So, no apparent conflict between Science and Religion, at least not the hypothesis of God. Religions have to specify things, so it’s quite easy to be in conflict with facts studied by Science, so the Religion part is replaced here with the hypothesis of God.
On the other hand, he think that scientific understanding of the world help expand the appreciation of the Divine. That’s a personal opinion of one who have opted for the belief of the existence of God. Not one who formulated the null hypothesis “God doesn’t exist” and have disproved it, he just adopt the believer’s position.

As an outspoken defender of evolution, I am often challenged by those who assume that if science can demonstrate the natural origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be abandoned.

So, God should not be abandoned, but what about religions teaching unnatural origins of our species? Say the main monotheistic religions, which have a completely different story in their teachings? One should abandon them and one would expect from Milled to have leave the Catholic Church, if not his faith to the Divine. He didn’t, he is always presenting himself as a catholic christian. Why so?

But the Deity they reject so easily is not the one I know. To be threatened by science, God would have to be nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for faith.

Miller makes a clear distinction between the God of the creationists, category in which he place the YEC and ID creationists, but not himself. One would have imagine that Miller is leaving behind him the christian credo at a God Creator of the universe. Not really. This is a Public Relations statement: “I’m not a creationist”.

As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it also suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else—in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

So, he is a creationist, as every christian, he is just avoiding the C-word.
One interesting juxtaposition here : human knowledge, spiritual and scientific. Spiritual knowledge, revealed, scientific knowledge, acquired. Often scientific knowledge displaced revealed one, and that’s the principal problem between Science & Religion. For the moment, we don’t have observed any juxtaposition, rather opposition: the scientific knowledge progressively transforming revealed knowledge to myths, making necessary to consider scriptures as metaphors, allegories or parables, instead of the initially claimed God Voice’s Revealed Truth. And the changes in Religion’s attitude continue, Miller’s opposition to traditional creationists being an example.
I do understand the need for people like Miller to find a compromise between their faith and their practice of science, they have to manage somehow to keep their sanity. But this isn’t a good pretext to forget the conflicting points of view between the scripture they consider as holly and crude facts. The conflict being evident, Miller should have rejected at least the Catholic Church, and christianity as a whole, if not considered the hypothesis of God as flawed. Not only he didn’t, by he is trying to juxtapose spiritual and scientific knowledge.

And what a light that is. Science places us in an extraordinary universe, a place where stars and even galaxies continue to be born, where matter itself comes alive, evolves, and rises to each new challenge of its richly changing environment. We live in a world literally bursting with creative evolutionary potential, and it is quite reasonable to ask why that is so. To a person of faith, the answer to that question is God.

OK, one needs faith to conclude that the universe is such an extraordinary place because of God; an a priori position, not based in knowledge other than revealed one.
First of all, I don’t find the universe to be an extraordinary one. I mean, extra compared to what other universe? Quite ordinary I would say. What is really extraordinary is our current knowledge of the universe, compared to our precedent ones; current scientific knowledge of the universe, that is.
If one leaves faith apart, the light, the bright light of human knowledge as Miller put it, comes from scientific knowledge.

The English poet Matthew Arnold, at the dawn of the modern era, once lamented that all he could hear of the “Sea of Faith” was its “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar.” To some, that melancholy roar is a sound to be savored because faith is a delusion, an obstacle, a stumbling block on the road to progress and enlightenment. It is the antithesis of science

Now, now, what we have here! A sophism. I wasn’t expecting to find one in this text, but sophisms seems unavoidable for creationist reasoning.
What connexion between science and “the faith is delusional”? None. While reading this paragraph one expect to read further that Science is based upon faith.

In this view God is an explanation for the weak, a way out for those who cannot face the terrible realities revealed by science. The courageous, the bold, the “brights” are those who face that reality and accept it without the comforting crutch of faith by declaring God to be obsolete.

“The terrible realities revealed by science”! What terrible realities? Why one should need any crutch to face reality? Is Miller disturbed by the terrible reality? Many people consider reality to be just reality, certainly not terrible, and certainly not revealed by science, just demonstrated.

But science itself employs a kind of faith, a faith all scientists share, whether they are religious in the conventional sense or not. Science is built upon a faith that the world is understandable, and that there is a logic to reality that the human mind can explore and comprehend. It also holds, as an article of scientific faith, that such exploration is worth the trouble, because knowledge is always to be preferred to ignorance.

Oh, here we are, science is based on faith! And according to Miller a faith all scientists share.

1. Science is based on the hypothesis that the world may be understandable (not the faith that it is)
2. on the hypothesis that human mind (or the ones to come) may be able to use logic to understand it
3. such exploration is not necessarily worth the trouble, I would say that such exploration is certainly great fun, not trouble
4. and yes, knowledge is to be preferred to ignorance, at least for practical reasons, at most for the fun of it ; practical use of knowledge improving life’s quality, and one of the greatest intellectual awards being understanding.

The fact that we try to, and achieve a scientific understanding of the world is not based on faith, rather on evidence from previous activity and expectation that the proven, until today, functional scientific framework will allow progress. If not, we are ready to drop it out and built something better fitting our needs. That happened several time on the past and may occur several more times in the future. Nothing to do with faith, everything to do with knowledge. Except if one is willing to consider faith as a framework to be used to understand the world. In this case faiths have proven to be the worst tools we elaborated to understand the worlds, the majority being already discarded and labeled as mythologies, a few remaining being auto-qualified (at least partially as myths).

I feel sorry for Miller if he really see scientific enquiry as a trouble and needs faith for his scientific activities. Not only for Miller, but for anyone in the same position.
Fun and joy are a much better approach and completely faith-free.

The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself.

First of all, for atheists, God doesn’t exist, so it can’t be anything or anywhere. Miller is quite confused here, he misinterprets and falsely presents atheists’ position.
And, he completely forgotten, already, that he presented the hypothesis of God in the very first sentence of his text. Hypotheses have to be proven previously, and thus loose there status of hypotheses replaced by the one of facts, to be considered as answers to any question. The way Miller put things implies a faith leap, miraculously transforming an hypothesis to a fact; for any creationist this is a common attitude, the hypothesis of God is replaced by the revealed fact of God’s existence. So, Miller dropped the rational consideration he seemed willing to adopt, he certainly not consider the question from a rational scientific point of view, maybe because of his other belief, that science is based on faith. Doesn’t work.

There is great naiveté in the assumption that our presence in the universe is self-explanatory, and does not require an answer.

That’s a sophism the way I like them. The answer from an atheist’s point of view is that our presence in the universe is self-explanatory, say as autocatalysis, a primitive replication; there is an answer, but Miller hide it under the blanket, pretending that atheism don’t require an answer. Who’s the naif? People that would buy Miller’s presentation of how atheists consider nature.

Many who reject God imply that reasons for the existence of an orderly natural world are not to be sought.

Orderly natural world? Maybe my english betray me here. Doesn’t orderly means methodologically arranged? No Intelligently Designed, just Orderly Set-Up? And he would like to not be categorized as creationist?

The laws of nature exist simply because they are, or because we find ourselves in one of countless “multiverses” in which ours happens to be hospitable to life. No need to ask why this should be so, or inquire as to the mechanism that generates so many worlds. The curiosity of the theist who embraces science is greater, not less, because he seeks an explanation that is deeper than science can provide, an explanation that includes science, but then seeks the ultimate reason why the logic of science should work so well.

Once more Miller try to make it look like atheists are less inquisitive than theists.

The hypothesis of God comes not from a rejection of science, but from a penetrating curiosity that asks why science is even possible, and why the laws of nature exist for us to discover.

And here we have a small touch of teleological thinking: “the laws of nature exist for us to discover“. What about just the laws of nature exists and it happens that we discover them when dropping the famous “god dit it” and endorse “let’s see how it works”.
The curiosity of theists that embrace science definitively ends at the “God did it” explanation, whatever the level they place it at. Why should be considered greater than scientific curiosity which is not limited by this hypothetical object/person theists call God?
And usually people reject the hypothesis that God exists because there is no evidence he do exist; except revealed knowledge which fails to be transformed to knowledge.

It is true, of course, that organized religions do not point to a single, coherent view of the nature of God. But to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity. Science, all of science, is necessarily incomplete—this is, in fact, the reason why so many of us find science to be such an invigorating and fulfilling calling. Why, then, should we be surprised that religion is incomplete and contradictory as well? We do not abandon science because our human efforts to approach the great truths of nature are occasionally hampered by error, greed, dishonesty, and even fraud. Why then should we declare faith a “delusion” because belief in God is subject to exactly the same failings?

Well, there is no way to compare organized religions and science the way Miller do it. Religions claim to be based on God words, revealed knowledge, and accessorily attribute omniscience to God. So, one would expect that there would be neither self-contradiction, or logical flaws, not even contradictory explanations from different religions. There are, a lot.
On the other hand, science, say physics, never claimed omniscience or completeness, on the contrary, it stays humble, and work gathering more and more knowledge to improve it’s models of the world. There is a great difference between revealed knowledge and acquired one. Religion shouldn’t fail. Religions’s logical failures and self-contradictions tell us that revealed knowledge can’t be trusted, and shouldn’t be trusted, not only for those bits that are already demonstrated to be false, but as a whole, because the revelation by an omniscient being is falsified. Quite funny that this isn’t evident for Ken Miller; blind faith probably.

Albert Einstein once wrote that “the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.” Today, even as science moves ahead, that mystery remains. Is there a genuine place for faith in the world of science? Indeed there is. Far from standing in conflict with it, the hypothesis of God validates not only our faith in science, but our sheer delight at the gifts of knowledge, love, and life.

Here comes an hypothesis to validate a faith! Well, as I said, no need of faith to go on with Science, and an hypothesis never validated anything.
Knowledge a gift? Who/what give it? You need faith to believe that God is the giver, so you a priori admit he exist. One can just see knowledge as an acquisition.
No need for a giver, and nothing there to support the theistic point of view of Ken Miller.

Let’s make it short :

Considering the “hypothesis of God”, there is nothing else than faith to support it, not even organized religions are able to do so otherwise. The comparison made by K. Miller between Religions and Science is false, as Science isn’t presenting knowledge allegedly issued by an omniscient entity, revealed knowledge, the latest being the apanage of Religions and being repeatedly proven wrong. One need faith to accept the hypothesis as anything else than just an unproven yet one.

K. Miller assumes that atheists’ scientific inquisitiveness is less profound than the one of theists’, because they don’t use as the final justification of Life, the Universe, and Everything Else the standard theistic motto “God did it”. And seek to dig deeper. Weird point of view.

Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God. Neither support it. If something contradicts the “hypothesis of God” that is the failure of organized religions, owners of revealed knowledge to not be self-contradictory or being contradicted by the facts.