Romansh:
Just replying to the title as is, the answer is no 
> We can have people like Behe who is obviously a scientist and think the bible can be taken as literally true. 
> 
> So what is the definition of atheist that you are using here David. Because some definitions would include agnostics like dhw?-The article describes scientists challenged by their faith and that science had to leave behind the Biblical teaching and becomec atheistic. I don't bother to quibble about agnostics, taking neither side, and atheists, who be definition don't accept the possibility of a God.

David; My book shows that science can offer strong proof of a greater power:
> 
> Romansh: So I take it your book is not scientific in nature? I say this because science does not provide proof, strong or otherwise. What your book might do is provide corroborating evidence for a position or hypothesis. Or perhaps a disproof.-You are correct. With my background in science from pre-med and med school I think i am capable of reading scientific literature and reaching my own conclusions and interpretations of the results. 
> 
> Romansh; Now if your book is of a philosophical nature then proof might be a possibility. This assumes you have clear and well defined axioms and that the logic has been executed clearly.-I have no background in philosophy: one brief 3-hour course in college and my own readings. I am not grounded in formal logic. But I can point out all the reasons not to believe in chance production of this present reality based on the scientific answers we have so far. As I've said I was an agnostic after med school, but softly so. I wan't really thinking things out, too busy learning and practicing medicine.-Then as a side interest I began to read cosmology and particle physics in lay books as the whole currently standard theories unfolded. And, no surprise, there is no Darwinian evolutionary theory used in med school except the proposal there might be some vestigial organs, and that is now disproven. -I began to revert back to some form of my own belief system with the physics. Then when I discovered how flimsy the whole Darwin theory is, based on some bits of knowledge in the 1840-60's, Alexander Russel Wallace's conclusions are more valid than Darwin's to me. And Wallace provided Darwin with lots of the material they both used.
> 
> Romansh: 6.9? I was never a fan of Dawkins' scale. 
> 
> I suspect like him I am 7 on the Greek, Roman, Norse and Abrahamic gods, though I suspect there might be some interesting insights gained on the human psyche from these myths.-I don't think the Western religions provide us with much insight, grounded as they are in myth and magic. So I end up with the religion of David: a universal consciousness behind the Heisenberg wall of uncertainty. Why it created us, I don't know. Its personality is like no other, per Mortimer Adler. Whether it cares about each of us individually, possibly 50/50, again per Adler. Why he decided to become Catholic before he died, I have no idea. I can't do that. I think Matt might have the best answers for me in the Buddhist interpretations.As dhw knows, I feel good where I am, and so far have not needed to go further. The book was on his encouragement, and I felt like doing it since it was over 10 years since the last one, and lots had been discovered which I felt proved my point, beyond a reasonable doubt, per Adler.- Something is eternal. There is no something from absolutely nothing. A caused Big Bang, a designer universe, a priveleged planet, the amazing origin of life, guided evolution, the human difference in kind not degree (again Adler) and the evidence from NDE's (my own patients described some), and so on.


> >GK: http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusion-Science-Finding-God/dp/1625108540/ref=sr_1_1?s=b... 
> I use science to support the notions "of higher power". Haven't met a science person yet that didn't say "didn't look at it that way" or "oh I meant a christian, or other deity, type thing."
> 
> When you said "my book" Did you write that book?-Yes, I wrote "The Atheist Delusion: Science IS Finding God". dhw asked me to do it as an answer to Richard Dawkins, 2006 "The God Delusion", which caused him to start this website in 2008. He helped me in editing. I announced it here several weeks ago. It was released on March 25,2014. My previous book on this subject was "Science vs. Religion", published in 2004.

I use science to support the notions "of higher power". Haven't met a science person yet that didn't say "didn't look at it that way"
You should get out more.-ietsism-been there done that.