Re: Did Dawkins really claim that god-did-it is a scientific hypothesis?

On Thu, 29 May 2025 21:07:46 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/29/25 4:54 PM, RonO wrote:

Dawkins answered kindly that belief in a designer is more than a mere
subjective response: "You appear to be a theist," he told her. "You
appear to believe in some kind of higher power. Now, I think that the
hypothesis of theism is the most exciting scientific hypothesis you
could possibly hold." Hold that thought in your mind.

Struggling through his wikipedia entry, it seems that Dawkins indeed
does support the notion that as a scientific hypothesis, God is
legitimate.  A fair number of physicists would agree. Religious
superstructures such as the Biblical miracles, visions, etc. don't count
as hypotheses.

In that quote, Dawkins referred to the hypothesis of *theism* and
there are many variations of theism of which Intelligent Design is
only one.

I would not consider ID as a hypothesis as it is based on dismissal of
what science already tells us for no reason other than incredulity and
it offers no explanation as to how its alternative actually works.

 I would regard the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin as a scientific
hypothesis because he embraces everything science tells us and does
give an explanation of how his version of theism actually works.