Dawkin's Points

So Richard Dawkins makes a good point that when religion makes a scientific statement, it's only fair game for scientists to examine such claims and evaluate them.  Religion, in his view, is only a matter outside of science so long as religion makes no claims about science.

His example is as follows.

What would happen if archeologists found some sort of great scientific evidence, DNA or such, that pretty much conclusively showed Jesus not only lived, but really was born of a virgin.  And it gets published and peer reviewed and all that.  How many theologeans (at least christian ones) would hesitate and say, "Well, that's science, religion is a matter of faith."

They only use that excuse when science doesn't agree with them.  Again, we see religion has a big double standard.

>>4
Not that I like feeding the troll, but to those reading...

There is plenty of evidence for transitional links and intermediate forms. They have been directly observed. Anyone who believes otherwise simply has choosen not to investigate the truth, and rather heard what they liked and stopped there.

We have seen transitional link in:
Ants
Peppered Moths
Cave Bats (many species)
Crop destroying insects (many species)
Crabs
Bovines (wild type)
Spiders
Finches (duh)
Primates (a few monkey species)
AIDS
Fish in isolated ponds
many, many more

and while I understand your point that it can only affect an existing species, and not actually create a new one, that too has been observed. Although I admit much more rare (as it would be expected to be), several species have been seen to be losing their ability to mate within some populations of their own kind, signifying the birth of a new species. This is seen (besides bacteria and insects where it can quite easily be observed) in larger animals like some fish and a birds species (at least 1).

Also, the half life of the magnetic field is a terrible example. The magnetic field changes it's intensity in waves, shown by the residue of magnetic allignment in rocks on sea floor faults. Carbon dating is much more reliable, as we have found very few things that can alter it, and the data from carbon dating is in allignment with every other form of long term dating we've used.