The basic question is, what evidence is considered “evidence”:
In the past few years, a number of observers have chronicled the disturbing trend within the science establishment toward bias and even outright corruption. While the left accuses conservatives of politicizing science, it is they who opportunistically exploit climate change and COVID-19 for their personal advantage.
If the physicalist worldview gains final supremacy, if the atheist view prevails, then the door is opened to technological barbarism. If human beings are thought to be without souls, without spirit, then what logic prevents us from being treated as mere assemblages of atoms and nothing more? What materialist basis is there for respecting human rights, especially if those rights come from God?
Fortunately, the evidence for God is accumulating. The deniers are scrambling for cover. Instead of seeking truth, they are hiding from the God they purport not to believe in. The truth, however, has a way of overcoming all falsehood. We are winning.Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker
An “anti-God” stance is, in some ways, more complex and less satisfactory than a conventional “pro-God” stance.
Yer news writer remembers the Constitution Committee hearings in Canada in the early 1980s. We adopted the phraseology “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”
Atheists have crabbed about that ever since.
Apparently, the atheists didn’t and don’t realize that the alternative is “the supremacy of GOVERNMENT and the rule of law.” Unless, of course, totalitarianism would be okay with them.
At least, that’s how we explained matters at the time. In truly serious matters, we reserve the right to appeal to a higher authority than whoever happens to be in office at a given time.