Dr. AKompton is an interesting example of the many scientists who, apparently, do not realize that fall into another area when moving from science to philosophy, and from it - to religion. For them, the "hypothesis of God" - just another one of those "working hypotheses" which temporarily scientist accepts as true, despite the fact that none of them can not be proved. Hence the conclusion, that "faith in God can be quite academic setting, even if we can not prove the correctness based on its beliefs." See .: Compton # 913 ;. # 919 ;. The Religion of a Scientist, p. 13. In this case, we are dealing with an unfortunate mix of languages. Yes, the principle of conservation of energy and the concept of evolution - a hypothesis, but a hypothesis is scientific because the scientific interpretation of the facts observed by us depends on whether we accept or reject these hypotheses. The existence or nonexistence of God, on the contrary, is the provision or denial of recognition which does not define any changes in the structure of our scientific explanations of the world and does not depend on the content of science as such. If, for example, assume that the world's present intention, the existence of God can not be considered as a scientific explanation of the concept of presence in the world: it is a metaphysical explanation; therefore God must be assumed as a metaphysical necessity and not as a scientific probability.