1. Stephen Hawking is not an atheist.
Of course not. I mistakenly was confusing Hawking with Dawkins. I meant Richard Dawkins. I've not read or heard anything from Hawking. Correction appreciated, was trying to write fast.
2. There is 'no' evidence in support of God, none. You can point to a tree and say, "God made that," but such is not evidence, merely espoused causality.
Case closed then, with no more point to a dialog for you. I suppose you are left with spontaneous generation as your premise for explaining the world in front of you. However, I would most humbly say, the assertion that there is no evidence for a designer behind the design is out of step with much of current scientific thought. You can do your own research if you are actually interested, but here is a small sampling.
Chemist Dr. Grebe:
“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.”
Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:
“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.”
Evolutionist Michael Denton:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
Supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105.)
Note: I was making the same point here with my Lamborghini example....although apparently quite poorly 
)
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle:
"The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
There are many origin-of-life researchers who now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Other scientists believe this is doomed to failure as it violates the 2LOT, which I still need to respond to Jack on.
Hellstrom, this best says what I am trying to:
"It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.
Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer.
Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory.
DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture."
I'll say again, we believe in a godless evolution because we were taught to believe it, and we hold on to it with incredible fervor because the alternative is simply unacceptable to us, despite the scientific and mathematic evidence that points elsewhere.
Best regards,
-Seamus
The Nobel Prize winning biochemist who helped develop penicillin, Dr. Ernst Chain, called the theory of Evolution "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life:" (1972):
"I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts." That's a quote from his biography.
