Robin Holliday has to consider that science itself is developed on assumptions about the observable universe. It cannot therefore rule out or claim anything about what is not observable. I think many atheistic scientitists are blind to their own assumptions in this regard. They refuse to accept anything beyond what they are content to be able to measure.

While there are numerous facts you can discern about living things from observation you still cannot answer why matter arranged in a certain way exhibits "life" but in any other way does not. Arriving at a definition of exactly what "life" is - other than saying that if molecules are arranged in a certain way they should become "living" - requires more than just physical appraisal. Philosophical considerations like why living things exhibit a survival purpose only to later die need to be addressed. Life is far more than just a physical argument.

Crusader

I know a lot of scientists who view both sides of the debate objectively and with a degree of impartiality where possible.

Whilst science doesn’t provide all of the answers, it certainly provides an explanatory path based on factual evidence and a degree of tangibility as opposed to the belief in some archaic document and supposed spiritual superbeing concocted many centuries ago.

Humans have a basic flaw in that they can become feeble minded and need to believe in a higher power that they believe will get them through life. Fair enough, but at least be open minded enough to entertain the thought that there may be other alternatives in the life/existence debate.

Your statement "They refuse to accept anything beyond what they are content to be able to measure" is baseless. To alter that statement to "They refuse to accept anything beyond what they read in the bible" is more appropriate to the God squad. So many times I have debated with the kerb crawlers and to this day not one of them have forfeited that religious indoctrination is rife with hypocrisy and contradiction.

I guess that trying to impart scientific knowledge onto religious zealots so that they can at least become informed is fruitless, after all, its easier to believe in parables than yourself.

Robin its a good question but I disagree with your conclusion for the following reasons:

Firstly
Science doesnt prove anything it mearly fails to disprove. Your a scientist you know this. Its the underliying principle of a null hypothysis, and in turn of the scientific method.

Secondly
There are no truths in science. As Decarte said 'All that I know to be true is I think therefore I am.' To be anything but agnostic requires faith (faith in science as in your case), mystercism or devine revilation.

Thirdly
Quantum Mechanichs may explain free will maybe it doesnt, maybe another theory will, maybe it wont, I dont know and nor do you.

If you want to argue that religion defies logic, thats fine everybody knows its a matter of faith but nothing is to be gained by professing a monopoly on truth.

Maybe our point of difference is a linguistic one but its an important one.

You might like to see this piece by Rodney Stark on the basis of reason science and capitalism:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=tqm4xd5mqkk5px43d968m19qmf4w3g5y

These post just confirm what the Author is talking about. It also affirms the idea that those of faith find it impossible to understand those without. Science is the tool we used to shed light into dark corners, nothing will escape it's searching light. Some complex mechanisms may allude it for another one hundred or one thousand or more years, but science will eventually uncover it. To say that science does not seek and uncover the truth is silly. Are you suggesting that electrons don't carry a negative charge or that energy and mass are interchangeable? Are you saying that quantum tunneling doesn't happen these things were discovered and understood by using science. Science is above individuals because science is testable disprovable. individuals may believe in a theory but id it's not based in fact if it's not testable, the results not repeatable then the idea doesn't last. Religion says there is untestable supernatural and science says there isn't. I think in the end it comes down to people a faith need a reality that doesn’t exist so they invent one.

Robin Holliday seems to be of the 'Just trust me, I'm smarter than you school'.

Perhaps I should say that because Robin does not have a PhD in philosophy, he is too ignorant to understand that he is speaking irrational nonsense? Does anything think that my statement is valid? I hope not. Yet, I have done exactly the same as Robin has, simply appealed to my own authority.

The intellectual egotistical snobbery of Doc Holliday is truly something to behold.

Amusingly enough, at the end of his 'it's too complex for anyone who disagrees with it' argument, he admits that some people who do understand it disagree with him.

I have a lot more comments here http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/12/intellectual-snobbery-in-evolution.html