True science, discovery and intellectual honesty requires that we let the FACTS speak.  Let them tell us where they lead, what they mean.  There is virtually no disagreement on the facts we see in nature; fossils exist,  things change over time, beak sizes change, anti-biotic resistance occurs, etc.... these are all facts which constitute evidence that relate to opinions as to what conclusion that evidence supports.

• A SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
  Even the most atheistic biologists agrees as a FACT, that nature gives the "appearance" of design. This fact leads to, at least, 2 separate opinions.
  • One opinion: The Materialistic Dogma states that the amazing diversity of life and nature descended from ONE first living cell.  A cell which after countless generations that included blind random chance beneficial mutations that were selected for survival.  Ultimately, this one cell through generation after generation of  beneficial mutations morphed into every aspect of life and resulted in the exquisite beauty, diversity and complexity of nature that we now see.
  • Second opinion, The world and universe does not simply appear to be designed, but actually is designed.  As will be discussed in other articles, there is an abundance of compelling evidence for this view.  The evidence we will discuss does not prove God anymore than opinion ONE proves the NON existence of God.   But rather what will be shown with crystal clarity is that the certainty proclaimed by many that "science has foreclosed the possibility of God", is not compelled by the science or evidence, but rather by a personal world view that is simply close minded to the possibility of God.    

• We know that life doesn't come from dead inanimate objects, but life exists, why?
• The incredible fine tuning of the universe For those unfamiliar with fine tuning, it is the fact that even slight alterations in any of the settings for gravity, strong force, weak force, dark energy, etc.... had to be set EXACTLY as they are.  Even the slightest variations would cause changes to the architecture of the universe such that life and even matter as we know it would cease to exist.
  • Lawrence Krauss, chairman of the physics and astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University who said that dark energy would involve the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics, because you would have to fine tune the dark energy parameter so very closely in order to get the universe to expand at the just right rate.  In fact, for physical life to be possible, it has to be fine-tuned to within one part in 10122. That"
    s 122 zeros after the one.*
  • IN FACT, SIR FREDERICK HOYLE, who was the first to realize that all chemical elements are created inside stars by nucleosynthesis made this startling comment, "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" (1982:)

• NOTE Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking are WRONG:
  • Upon reading this article, many committed materialists will assert Dawkins"
     "The God Delusion";  Krauss"
    s "A Universe from Nothing"; Hawking"
    s "The Grand Design"; each in their own way, showed that the arguments for God, don't hold water.  The fact is that for each of them, their arguments have been ridiculed and demolished even by many members of their own field.  Please feel free to comment and I will direct you to sites and scientific commentary on their, books.

• What would it take for you to believe in a God?  I"
  ve personally heard...
  • If the stars lined up to spell "Your name is John and I am your God"
  • If I threw a hundred scrabble squares and the hit the ground and spelled, "I am God and I have been watching you".

SAME EVIDENCE MULTIPLE CONCLUSIONS
Unfortunately, many don't even acknowledge that there are two sides. 

The fact is that MANY of the most brilliant atheistic minds in the world have turned from atheism to God, based solely on the weight of the evidence.  The more we've learned, the more compelling the case "for" has become and more tenuous the case "against" has become.

• If I threw a ball across the room and hit Joe with it, that is clearly an incontrovertible, unquestioned  FACT.  The same thing would have been seen by all observers.  However, that fact will be interpreted by each in their own way and their conclusions will be swayed by their preconceptions.... do they know me?  Like me?  Do they dislike Joe?
  • One asserts that I'm a horrible person that wanted to hurt Joe.
  • Another, that I'm an idiot that wasn't paying attention.
  • A third observer is certain that I obviously have terrible coordination and couldn't hit the ground twice in a row.

They each saw the same fact, but the conclusions could not be more different.  Likewise, the opinions that we have for the existence or non existence of God, often rest on universally agreed upon facts. The problems and disagreement arise over our interpretations of what those facts mean.

No matter on which side of the question you reside.... FACTS presented in this and the many other articles will be enlightening....