[split] a discussion on origins sparked by "The Order of Things"

[busker]

Incorrect.  I never said they couldn’t.  

See below:

Christians love to point out that Newton and other prominent scientists from a long time ago were either Christian or theists. But this is a very weak argument for theism. This does not make Christianity or theism the least bit true. It doesn’t even make it reasonable. It is a logical fallacy.

There are a few problems with this way of thinking. The main problem is that it refers to people from CENTURIES ago. Why is that a problem? Because scientists like Newton were not aware of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that we have gained after his lifetime, and knowledge we have learned since then, namely: Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Dinosaurs, Edwin Hubble’s discoveries with the Hooker Telescope, spectrometry, the Hubble Telescope, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc., etc., etc.

The 'because' posits a causal (though no necessarily exclusive) relationship between Newton's ignorance of things like evolution, and his belief in a Christian god. 

You are wrong that the hypothesis can be anything.  It is a two-prong proposition.  Either a god or god(s) exist(s) or a god or god(s) do not exist(s).  A or not A.  One of those is, in fact, in reality, true.  If you assert one or the other, then you have to have evidence for it.  Otherwise, it’s just a baseless assertion believed to be true on faith alone.

Actually, no. The null hypothesis is the default hypothesis. It doesn't need to be proven. However, it needs to be disproven if you're to discard it. 
A two-pronged proposition is not necessarily a null hypothesis. That's just how you're choosing to frame it.
Your choice of a null hypothesis is 'there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of a god'. Good for you.

I have done no such thing.  I have argued against doing that very thing over and over in this thread.  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not know if there is a god.  That is exactly why I do not believe one exists.  I do not know if there is NOT a god either.  That is exactly why I do not believe a god does NOT exist.  I lack both beliefs.  

You can have similar ambivalence about pretty much anything, such as Planck's constant, or the gravitational constant, the steady state theory, or the curvature of the earth. It is very easy to say 'there is no evidence either way to a level that satisfies me personally, so I choose not to have a personal belief either way'. For Planck's constant, you can choose to have faith in the scientists who carried out the necessary experiment or not, for the steady state theory you can choose to believe that Fred Hoyle, Narlikar, and that particular school of physics have something, for the curvature of the earth you can choose to ignore the evidence of your eyes since the senses are not infallible. 
That's entirely up to you, and if you choose to sit on the fence, there's no reason why it is an intellectually superior position to take.