Science vs God.

So Richard Dawkins took on the Archbishop of Canterbury in an all out fist fight over God or the third law of thermodynamics; the one that says you can’t get something for nothing. Whether getting 50% off in a DFS sofa sale constitutes getting the right hand end for nothing is still disputed. The A of C does have a point that the universe does actually exist but post Matrix viewers might even dispute that, and Dawkins construction of God not being within the concepts of science is a bit like saying there are no bits of apple in this banana so apples don’t exist. Somewhat graciously though the A of C doesn’t attempt to say science doesn’t exist; that would just be tit for tat ‘my dad’s bigger than your dad’. But perhaps he should. Science might describe an apple but it isn’t an apple. No part of science is an apple, or a badger, or a badger eating an apple. Science might describe the universe and how it came into existence but doesn’t consider why it did. They might agree on evolution but why exactly has evolution happened? I mean we’re all keen on thinking humans are the Lady Gaga of our animal cousins but put one of us in the environment of a tadpole for a month and I’d put good money on the tadpole being the fittest survivor. It seems to me science is the one avenue of human endeavour that is attempting to prove that God does exist while many religions in their very humanoid paranoia are making a good job of proving it doesn’t. I use the impersonal pronoun ‘it’ in favour of the ‘he’ and ‘him’ and father etc because it reduces the possibility of deep shame when we find God was intending its message for stoats. Imagine the pain of suicide bombers finding their hundred virgins turned out to be short tailed weasels. (Mustela erminea) That would be really disappointing.