Science,not religion to the rescue!

         Dawkins claims scientists, not theologians will  inform us about the formation of the universe. The supernatural adds nothing as Aqunas' superfluity , the Ockham and the presumption of naturalism note.

           Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly use the superfluity argument in noting that " To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the  descriptions- laws of Nature,M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for>" To insist that why, that's a category mistake begs the question thereof.
            Dawkins explains in  his books how natural causes without boss God makes for transformations of  living things. No divine intent necessary to explain how natural causes operate.
            Stenger  notes how  the laws of Nature need no boss to operate, and I add, He's depend on them as the  primary cause, not Himself!  The laws  describe how matters work without involving any divine intent.

             To  find divine intent to  tweak the laws of Nature for us to have evolved contradicts instead of complementing science, despite what  theistic evolutionists claim.

            That intent is that superfluity that makes theism reduced animism, and without that intent then , theism is as superstitious as full animism or polytheism.

             That  supercilious, superstitious  superfluity gives rise to murder and other evils.

             Why do we naturalists cavil against a  nothing? Right and duty compel us to educate others about this disvalue , this form of woo.

                     What more can you add? Any dissent?