(I had to type this important article by hand from the Journal
"Australasian Science" August 2006 issue, so to free my copyright
ridden conscience from culpability, please consider purchasing a copy,
and lastly excuse any transcription errors...
I have taken the drastic step of making this much work for me, as I
feel that his essay is vital for all atheists, and all scientists.

Ok, that aside, here is Robin Holliday's take on this matter:
(Doc Holliday is a geneticist and cell biologist who is a Fellow of
the Royal Society of London, and the Australian Academy of Science. He
conducted research in the UK and as a Chief Research Scientist for
CSIRO, and has published over 250 scientific papers and several books.
He is best known for devising the "Holliday structure", a DNA
intermediate in genetic recombination.
Not bad for all those fundies who place so much weight on authority.)

To the article:
"Robin Holliday says scientists should be more assertive in
acknowledging the longstanding incompatibility between religion and
biology.

The publication of Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859
was followed by bitter controversy between those who believed in the
divine creation of species and those who were persuaded by the logic
and power of Darwin's arguments.
This controversy seemed to die down in the 20th century, when it was
common to assert that science dealt with the material world, and
religion with the spiritual.
It was also implicit in the view that science and religion were in
some way complementary to each other.

Although most of those who were religious accepted the ancient origin
of life on this planet and organic evolution, many believed that this
evolution was all part of God's plan, presumably for the final
appearance of Homo sapiens. At the same time, genetics was explaining
how Darwinian evolution could occur and there were many contemporary
examples of natural selection in action.

It became clear that mutation and natural selection could explain
complex adaptations. This has now been reinforced by DNA sequencing, a
very powerful tool for illuminating the origins and diversity of
species. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a
resurgence of creationism, either in the guise of "science
creationism" or "intelligent design".
The old arguments about gaps in the fossil record and the problem
natural selection has in explaining the appearance of complex
structures are brought up over and over again.

The simple fact is that there is an enormous knowledge gap between
evolutionary biologists who are familiar with the wealth of evidence
in favour of Darwinian natural selection and those who are unfamiliar
with this evidence and frequently do not feel there is a need to
examine it because they have blind faith in a divine creator.
This is one of the divisions between religion and science, but by no
means the only one.

Belief vs Scientific Understanding:
Most religions seem to have six characteristics in common:
1) a belief in an omniscient God or gods;
2) a belief in miracles
3) a belief that the material human body is separable from a
non-material soul
4) a belief that humans have free will, a conscience, and the
god-given ability to choose between good and evil;
5) a belief in an immortal after-life, sometimes in the form of
reincarnation; and:
6) a belief in the efficacy of prayer, which assumes that direct
contact between humans and a deity exists.

The belief in a non-material soul or spirit implies hat it arises at
some stage in human development, and this can be linked to the view
that life itself is a mystery. By implication, this is outside the
realm and understanding of science.

Modern molecular biology has effectively solved the "mystery of life".
The genetic material, DNA, is a polymeric chemical with enormous
coding capacity.
It directs the synthesis of RNA, which in turn is translated into
proteins.
Many proteins are enzymes, and thousands of these have been
characterised.
The major components of metabolism are well understood.

In short, living cells consist of complex chemicals and even more
complex chemical interactions.
There is absolutely no place for a "vital force" or any non-material
entity, either in the egg, sperm, fertilised egg, embryo, child or
adult.
Thus there is no non-material soul and therefore no afterlife.

Free Will vs Scientific Understanding:
The next fundamental difference between science and religion is the
issue of free will.
In fact, most individuals believe in free will because it is a matter
of common experience that they feel free to make their own decisions.
For the religious, free will is God's gift to man.
However, once it is accepted that we are complex organisms composed
only of molecules, then completely new light is thrown on the supposed
existence of free will.
For example, we feel completely free when making a simple choice
between moving our right or left arm, but the fact remains that a
signal is transmitted to muscles that comes from the brain.
The brain is not capable of spontaneously creating energy (because if
it did, it would contravene the law of conservation of energy), so a
prior signal must come from elsewhere.
Because we are conscious of feeling free, the signal must have come
from another part of the brain that is part of our unconscious brain
function.

Thus there are no forces at work of which we are not aware. These
forces are determinants of our behaviour, and free will is no more
than an illusion.
Of course, some decision-making is complex and may depend on
knowledge, experience and external factors, of which we are well
aware, but this does not affect the basic conclusion.

Two Cultures:
C. P. Snow wrote about the "Two Cultures" in 1959, drawing on his own
experience as a scientist and his later career as a novelist. There is
no disputing the fact that there is now an immense divide between
modern science and the general public.
Today's molecular and cellular biology is of enormous sophistication
and complexity, and is well beyond the comprehension of an intelligent
layman. The concept of two cultures is therefore very much alive,
despite the best efforts of contemporary science writers to explain
new advances.

Most people seem to accept the reality of the advances in physics and
chemistry without having to understand them.
Unfortunately, this is far from true in the case of biology,
especially human biology.
People think that they are free to believe in many features of a
spiritual world or to adopt irrational viewpoints.
Unfortunately, the rejection of such beliefs and viewpoints depends on
either a detailed knowledge of what biology has achieved over many
decades, or it depends on an acceptance of the scientific validity of
biological knowledge.

A significant paradox is that many who hold spiritual beliefs are
quite willing to accept sophisticated medical treatments for illness,
disease or accidents, which increasingly depend on recent fundamental
biological and biomedical research.

It is politically correct to be tolerant of all religions, but why
should we be tolerant of the myths and miracles upon which they are
based?
It is not good enough for scientists to feebly accept this political
correctness.
They should believe in the reality of what science has demonstrated
over several centuries.
To act or believe otherwise is not intellectually rigorous and is
indeed a betrayal of the achievements of their own discipline.

Experimental science has established itself as rational and
reproducible, and there is no place for the contravention of natural
laws, such as religious myths, superstition and the occult. Nor can
any case be made for the efficacy of prayer, as was shown by British
scientists Francis Galton in a study published in 1872.

Many people believe that there is an omniscient deity responsible for
the creation of the universe.
Yet there is a huge difference between this and the further belief
that this deity is in direct contact with human beings and may
influence their behaviour or respond to their prayers.

Atheists believe that there is no deity who has any contact, influence
or interaction with man, whatever the origin of the universe may be.
For religion, they substitute humanism, which is the strongly held
opinion that the problems of mankind can only be solved people
themselves."