I just read the lastest article from the latest Wired Magazine. It is about the "New Atheists" -- a group of super smart biologists that have actually followed their conclusions a bit more consistently that others. What I mean is this: they actively "evangelize" their worldview.

Here is a small excerpt from the article:

"A variety of rebuttals to atheism have been tried over the years. Religious fundamentalists stand on their canonized texts and refuse to budge. The wisdom of this approach - strategically, at least, - is evident when you see the awkward positions the nonfundamentalists find themselves in. The most active defender of faith among scientists right now is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In defiance of the title, Collins never attempts to show that science offers evidence for beleif. Rather, he argues only that nothing in science prohibits belief. Unsolved problems in diverse fields, along with a scepticism about knowledge in general, are used to demonstrate that a deity might not be impossible. The problem with this, for defenders of faith, s that they've implicitly accepted science as the arbiter of what is real. This leaves the atheists with the upper hand. That's because when secular investigations take the lead, sacred doctrines collapse."


Related, I recently read Richard Dawkins (the billy graham of evolutionists) response to Alistair McGrath's book questioning his darwinistic views:

"As for McGrath's book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn't very impressive, is it?"

What are your guys thoughts on this. Must we prove God? Do we carry the burden of proof? Also, can God be "proved?" Can the scientific method "prove" or even "disprove" God? Is this the problem with evidentialist apologetics? Does pressupositional apologetics have a word with evolution arguments?

Thoughts?