I think that's possibly a step too far
They're ruled out by the laws of science as we currently know them, but that's not quite the same thing. I lean more towards Enzyme's way of putting it: God is an unnecessary hypothesis to account for the world we see around us.
Of course, there are also logical flaws in the God concept, but that leads to word games and doesn't really help anyone.
My personal favourite argument against creationism is this: given the staggering amount of evidence for evolution, the only possible conclusion is that God was deliberately lying to us (cf Terry Pratchett's 'Strata'). Once you accept that (you can call it 'testing your faith', then it becomes difficult to see why God mightn't just as easily have been lying to us in the Biblical account. Surely once you accept a mendacious God, all bets are off?
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51,
Share,
Reply)
I like all of that.
The thing is, I have no problem with saying that there are logical issues with religion, but then I don't support any faith nuts, be they Muslim Extremists, Creationalists or Dawkins.
I also find that many, many Dawkins supporters seem to equate any religion with a strict following and utter belief in the bible, as though faith had rules. Not many Christians are creationists.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:00,
Share,
Reply)
And our survey says - wah wahhh
www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
(
OldWhit, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 13:15,
Share,
Reply)