[ClearCase_guy]

If modern science limits itself to those things that can be empirically known, then the study of life must be done within certain parameters. One would have to make the case that all of the diversity of life is made possible through Evolution and genetic drift.

If, however, a curious bit of evidence were to surface, and someone were to say "Perhaps we need to broaden our view in order to explain this ..." The strict materialist will shut that conversation down -- no broader view is needed. Get a better microscope. Find new techniques. Empirical evidence is all we will ever need. By definition of what "science" is.

On the other hand, if we look at the origin of life and conclude that something "other" had to play a role, then we open the door to further exploration of other aspects of biology and the possibility that something beyond the empirical world could be considered, and might not be inappropriate.

Science is either 100% materialistic, or it's not. The pure evolutionists are counting on it being 100% materialist. The folks with Faith are willing to accept a material solution for much, but not all, that we see around us.

I'm not narrow-minded: I live in a world of both Faith and Science.

[kimtom]

Life is fascinating , isn’t it???

[hopespringseternal]

If modern science limits itself to those things that can be empirically known, then the study of life must be done within certain parameters. One would have to make the case that all of the diversity of life is made possible through Evolution and genetic drift.

Empirically, all we know is that mutations happen. Using that as the basis of the theory of evolution is taking two data points an inch apart and extrapolating them to the ends of the universe.

Science can be 100% materialistic, it just has to admit there are questions it can't answer. There just isn't enough empirical evidence, and for some things (like evolution) collecting the needed empirical evidence would take impossibly long.

Science loses its way when it tries to answer cosmic questions based on the assumption of 100% materialism, especially as we know it.

One hundred years ago our understanding of the material world was vastly different. One another 100 years it will be just as different. That ground is far too unstable to build any grand edifice on.

If the theory of evolution were proposed today it would be laughed off the stage based on what we know about the complexities of cellular biology and biochemistry. Scientific knowledge of those fields was virtually non-existent when it was proposed.

It is simply carried forward on inertia and faith.