I feel I need to comment on the idea that science gives us anything more than a hypothesis, while philosophy cannot prove anything because it does not have physical facts to observe.
This betrays a woeful ignorance of how science works and what it claims to do. In fact, it’s simply backwards.
Science, because it relys on observations of physical phenomena, can never prove anything, and can only make hypothesis or theories. That is not really to say anything against science, all scientists (perhaps not Dawkins, given the way he speaks) know this. There are very good reasons to accept strong scientific theories. But they cannot be proved.
It is possible, however, to prove immaterial things. We can prove things sometimes in logic or mathematics, for example. When we talk about more complex issues, it becomes more difficult - it is hard to really get at them through pure provable logical statements. But theoretically it is possible, unlike science.
What seems to be missed, is that whatever validity scientific theories have comes from the ability to prove immaterial things. That is, if immaterial logic and reasoning are simply invalid, it also invalidates science. A scientific theory is NOT just a collection of observations - that would be a list of numbers that would reveal nothing. The theory, which tells us something useful, which draws information and relates those numbers, is immaterial. Science is essentially a form of philosophy which deals with observable phenomena.
So saying that science is provable while it is impossible to argue about something we can’t see is ignorant. It might be best to do a bit of reading about the scientific method.
