American Thinker December 29, 2020
For many years now, the argument by atheist scientists has seemed
reasonable. It goes something like this: we do not claim that there is
no God. We simply claim that there is no scientific evidence for Him. If
you have such evidence, we will examine it. If the evidence justifies a
belief in God, we will accept it. Until then, only the physical can
explain the physical. There is no need for God and no room for Him in
science. If you say there is a God, then show us the evidence.
That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in
the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure,
there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may
have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest
skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new
paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an
objective, unbiased, and qualified person.
It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else.
Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more
open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the
unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently
dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical.
The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever
less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only
the physical exists.
