I believe the polemic offered by bushbasher, sancho, myself and others certainly don't reduce the "meaning or purpose of life" to scientific empiricism or explanation through supporting evolution and the countering of creationism . The subject of life's purpose or meaning is a separate, albiet worthy topic of exploration. I haven't a problem with religious myth, through its either its expression or culture, where a profound dimension can be added. When our myths, however, are no longer confined to the interior, to indeed become 'fact', a false religiosity appears. Resulting religious militancy has historically had its fair share of blood-shed.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.

"Theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered

hi, george. yes i'm happy to qualify what i said, that introducing a god cannot be part of a scientific explanation, and leave open more human questions. i'm skeptical more generally, but it is not the issue here. but also, as reida has just written, no one is reducing the meaning of life to science. dawkins is strident and aggressive, but he is very solidly and caringly human. he is not the parody that gray and others make him out to be. it is only a question of whether you think "secular humanist" is an insult (gray) or a compliment (dawkins).

i think you might be underestimating the level of mathemetical framework in modern evolutionary theorizing. i know basically nothing about it, but my understanding is that at the level of genetics and biochemistry, there are pretty clear and quantifiable characterizations of evolutionary processes. maybe not F = ma, but still chunkily mathematical.

my guess is that the reason more biologists are "militant" atheists (a silly adjective, which you should refrain from using) is that they have been defending their turf from creationists, and are simply sick of it. i think the new nonsense of intelligent design was the last straw, and there has been a conscious decision amongst some biologists to replace an exhausted defense with an aggressive offense.

i can appreciate both. my favourite science writer was stephen jay gould, who was very conciliatory towards religious belief. but i also really appreciate dawkins' "no more mr. nice guy" approach.

I’ve been called a lot of names in this thread so far (I could make a list) from those whose knowledge of the scientific method is so much better than my own. I wonder where name calling falls into the scientific method? Latest posts reveal that I’m ‘fearful’ or ‘scared’.

Relda’s idea of the scientific method was fairly good: ‘empirical evidence, experimental testing, and logical reasoning’.

Sancho, for those questions regarding past events, I’ll try and clarify. Adaptation is an observation. Everyone sees it. No one denies it. Our ancestor crawling out of a lake in time past is a (dubious, unrepeatable) historical event. What happened three million years ago is beyond observation, unless someone invents a time machine.

It is impossible to prove any historical event scientifically, whether from the 16th Century or even last week, because historical events can’t be repeated. (We know a lot about the dates of paintings and other human history through historical records.)

Let’s look at a half empty glass of water. You can analyse the water up and down and perform any test you like, predict when it will evaporate, etc. But if I claim that I drank from that glass last week, how could you prove my claim? It’s ultimately impossible. That’s the difference between historical (e.g. forensic) science and operational science.

Whether people allegedly descended from ape like creatures (in the past) and assessment of (present day) gravity are questions in a different league.

Yet, as Relda points out, most scientists believe in evolution. This is evolution’s greatest strength; the ‘billion people in China can’t all be wrong’ type of argument. It also sometimes gives creationists a little credibility, as they are forced to swim against the stream, as they risk denial of research funding, failure by militant academics, and name calling. I would say this is evidence of courage, not fear.

Sancho, if you are looking for a valid biologist who casts doubt on evolution, I would recommend reading “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, by Michael Denton, a molecular biologist at the University of Otago, New Zealand.

Colinsett, I’m curious as to what you see that is compelling or so tremendously interesting in the fossil record or comparative anatomy regarding our family tree?

Bushbasher, are you not impressed by the majesty of the biological world?

dan, i don't respect your method of arguing, and i won't pretend to. am i impressed by the majesty of the biological world? absolutely. it's just not science, any more than your ability to fall off a roof is a test of newton's theory of gravity.

i'll let sancho rip into your absurdities on science and history.
as for denton, try the following:

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

“I’m curious as to what you see that is compelling or so tremendously interesting in the fossil record or comparative anatomy regarding our family tree?”(Dan)
How can anyone find it otherwise?

We didn’t jump from the shoulders of monkeys to an eternal pinnacle of biological finality. We are but an ephemeral leaflet on the tree of life, with plenty to celebrate.

How great it is, our ability to appreciate the sigh of beach sand-and-water massaged by a gentle swell; the roar of an angry “sea-god” crashing giant swells against rocks; soft rustle of breeze-moved casuarina leaflets; the drum-roll of thunder up-and-down some remote gorge; a glorious rendition of Beethoven’s Romance for Violin and Orchestra.

Pity our distant cousins of the Fungal kingdom: comprising 20+% of all present biological mass; providing yeasts for our bread, flavor for Roquefort cheese, manipulating productivity of both leaves and roots of plants, assisting development of raindrops. But, never able to appreciate a Vermeer.

We have many such cousins, and are fundamentally dependent upon many.

The seed of our family tree germinated close to 4 billion years ago. The remnants of a close cousin of ours at the time can be seen south-west of Broome - Stromatolite fossils 3,500 million years old. Their family still has a living presence at Shark Bay – poor things still unable to appreciate the squeaking of resident dolphins.

Our great, great--- grand-daddy, who was first with a spinal cord, developed 500-or so million years back - perhaps an Amphioxus, queer old cuss!

The milk of human kindness did not arrive until great-great --- grandma came on the scene somewhere about 200 million years back. Her progeny hung to milk production in spite of the differing comparative anatomy of whales, mice, tigers, humans and kangaroos.

We stopped aping-around about 2 million years back. We are the last of our tribe – the sole remaining representative of our genus.

All of the above is evidenced in the fossil record, current biology, and my enthusiasm for the joys of life (shared with friends who include non-militant godly).