With scientific knowledge ever-progressing, is there space left for God?
Is there going to be a time when science will have uncovered all the secrets of the universe and proven that there is no Divinity?
As science progresses, is the belief in God becoming ever-more irrational and ridiculous?
Ian Morison explains why God will never be ruled out by scientific progress- Gresham College
Bio
Ian Morison
Gresham Professor of Astronomy Ian Morison made his first telescope at the age of 12 with lenses given to him by his optician. Having studied Physics, Maths and Astronomy at Oxford, he became a radio astronomer at the Jodrell Bank Observatory and teaches Astronomy and Cosmology at the University of Manchester.
Over 25 years he has also taught Observational Astronomy to many hundreds of adult students in the North West of England. An active amateur optical astronomer, he is a council member and past president of the Society for Popular Astronomy in the United Kingdom.
At Jodrell Bank he was a designer of the 217 KM MERLIN array and has coordinated the Project Phoenix SETI Observations using the Lovell Radio Telescope. He contributes astronomy articles and reviews for New Scientist and Astronomy Now, and produces a monthly sky guide on the Observatory's website.
Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; therefore, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design generally avoided identifying the designer with the God of Christianity or other monotheistic religions, in part because they wished the doctrine to be taught as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution in public schools in the United States, where the government is constitutionally prohibited from promoting religion. Critics of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms, and that it is ultimately untestable and therefore not scientific. See alsocreationism.
What exactly did he misrepresent? Aside from his own personal conclusion (that a God probably exists because it's too unlikely for all these factors to hold true at random), are there facts he offered that you disagree with?
He goes on for a bit about how the universe seems designed for life, "otherwise I would not be here," he proclaims. Well, OK. But we are hardly the only possible type of life that can exist. Just look at the diversity of life on earth and how life has evolved over 4.5 billion years, some of which time modern humans likely couldn't have existed. Why is it that when scientists "get religion" they decide to ignore so many of the things they studied?
I think Morison was putting too much emphasis on the fact that life is aware because we can think and ask these questions, that we are unique. Maybe every single particle in the universe is aware on different levels to what we understand, a universe alive and trying to understand itself. When will people stop using god to fill in the gaps that science cannot explain?
I find this blatant misrepresentation of science to be deceptive and misleading to the general populous. Unless you have empirical evidence of a god, then you have no business being in the science forum category. You should know better, Professor!
In any case,the God that Morison is positing is not a being that intervenes in our lives, or to whom it makes any sense to pray. It is not the God of the Old or New Testaments, or the Koran, or any religious text. I can't see how it should make any difference to us whether or not this God Morison is talking about actually exists.
There is nothing in this that cannot be explained by the anthropic principle. Also at the end of the video he says, "Although science cannot say that God does exist, they certainly cannot say that he does not exist." To this, I quote Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
member. 
