Is Sam Harris religion better than others?

CNN has an article by John D. Sutter called, "Philosopher: Why we should ditch religion." In the article he draws comments from Sam Harris trying to make the case on why we should ditch religion. I will be examining some of the comments by Harris over the next couple of days. Tonight I want to look at the opening comment in the article. Sam Harris says, "For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop looking to religion to guide their moral compasses." This is a fascinating statement. Essentially, Sam wants us to get rid of the only foundation for morality that man can reference that is unwavering. And he wants us to ditch this moral compass for what??? Sam Harris is one of the outspoken athiest of our day. So we know that his ditching of spiritual forms of religion is to be replaced by a dependence on science and evolutionary thought. It fascinates me because I grew up being taught that the goal of good science is that it is testable, observable and repeatable. Most scientist would call this a good definition of science. Evolution one of the main things Sam wants us to rely on by this definition is a total failure. The macro evolution that Sam is talking about happens over millions of years. It is not observable. We take our best guess based on what we see. Now your preconceived notion will have a great deal of influence on how you interpret the data you discover. This is where Sam and many other scientist begin to rely on faith in their opinions about the data. But macro evolution fails the testable part of good science as well. Once again we look at the data and based on what our notion is about the outcome we come up with what must have happened. For committed evolutionist like Sam it is a forgone conclusion what the data must mean. Finally evolution fails on the repeatable side as well. But that really does not matter to the evolutionist because it all adds up based on what their assumptions are about the data we find. So you see what Sam has is a lot of faith in man's ability to peer into the past with absolute accuracy and determine that there is no God. Sam's faith ultimately is not in hard empirical data. His faith is in man's understanding of the data. Very highly educated Christian scientist looking at the same data will come away affirming that the data points to God and disproves evolution. Once again the person's predicate notions influence the way they see the data. What strikes me here about the statement is that Sam wants to replace the Christian religion with a religion that roots its faith in man. Romans 1:20-23 tells us how men who reject God even though they perceive the invisible things of God, like morality, become futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts are darkened. Where will morality come from without Christian religion? Who will be the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Will there even be such a thing as right and wrong in a world like that? The answer is yes there will be right and wrong. The right and wrong will be determined by God's law which is written on the hearts of men. Sam Harris will borrow the capital of morality from the Christian religion and use it with impunity while at the same time decrying that religion. Sam there is no moral compass for anyone without a righteous and Holy God to whom we can look for that direction. Sam can have his religion of man, I will continue to pursue a God focused life.