A simple challenge for atheists

[Simon Moon]

Ok, so scientists have created a self-assembling molecule that can self-replicate. I was wrong. But still, the environment proposed for this to happen in nature is still highly unlikely. Will scientists find a way in the future to explain how it could have happened naturally? I guess that is possible - in hind sight.

It doesn't matter if the environment was exactly like that of early earth. All that matters is that, in some environment, it could have happened naturally.

Unless you want to say that on earth, it required a god, but elsewhere in different environments, it could have happened without the intervention of a deity.

I was asked for an example of a scientist who came to became in God, and why he came to believe.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
edition[dot]cnn[dot]com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary

But as a scientist, he consciously leaves his beliefs at the laboratory door.

He is a true scientists, unlike all the creationists dressed up in lab coats.

As a former atheist, he asked: "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"

Some of the most intelligent people are still capable of using logical fallacies in an attempt to support their beliefs.

The fine tuning argument is fallacious on several levels.

He search lead him to God, through the writings of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. C.S. Lewis makes the argument that Jesus was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. You are forced to make a decision. His existence is recorded in the history books. Flavius Josephus' account is enough. Josephus was a Jewish military leader and an historian. He lived at the time of the first church and Jesus' followers.

Too bad CS Lewis missed an important choice from his false trichotomy; that would be "legend".

Please stop with Josephus. The passage that mentions Jesus is a well known interpolation or forgery.

"Here was a person (Jesus) with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus."

If only someone was able to produce this alleged "remarkably strong historical evidence". All that is ever presented is mentions of Christians by historians that lived well after Jesus allegedly lived.

Again, Collins' statement above is fallacious. He presents a false dichotomy. "Deluded or the real thing" are not the only 2 choices.

He is still a scientist:
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation?"

Yes, he is quite a brilliant scientist. Too bad he doesn't ask for the same level of evidence for his religious beliefs.

"I find no conflict here (in miracles), and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers."

Most of these scientists do not believe in a personal, miracle working god. They are deists, not theists.