The author takes away from issues of religion and faith by throwing in a reference to "Saving the Whales" because there are all sorts of flawed and fraudulent environmental agendas floating around by various groups and the true conservationists are not represented by these groups. "Saving the Whales" is fraught with political ramifications and does not belong in a commentary supposedly "proving" the existence of God. The title of this article is inaccurate and is a disservice to your organization.
Thanks for your comments about my article "Evidence for the Existence of God."
If I indicated that I was trying to "prove" the existence of God, then please help me see where, so I can change it. I don't think anyone can prove the existence of God, but we can point to evidence for Him. I am very aware that our sinfulness makes it easy for people to dismiss perfectly good evidence of our Creator NOT because the evidence isn't good enough, but because they are disturbed by the implications of the existence of a God to whom we are all accountable.
My reference to "Saving the Whales" was simply to make the point that people resort to the moral argument regardless of their relationship to God, because our morality is ingrained in us as people made in the image of God. The politics of that movement really don't have anything to do with the point I was making; I was only concerned with the motivation behind it.
I do think that evidence and faith are not diametrically opposed. We have faith not just because we choose to believe, but because there is good reason to believe; and that constitutes evidence. I think Christianity is an evidential faith; that's why Jesus appeared to over 500 people after His resurrection, so there would be eyewitness testimony (evidence) of the foundation of our faith. For some, the faith comes first, and for others, the evidence comes first and THEN they put their trust in God. Either way, the important thing is the object of our faith and not how we got to Him.
Thanks for writing.