[Dead Dog]

I think we probably agree, for the most part. My point is that science cannont make any assumption as to why something is, only how. Presumption of the existence or non existence or God is not scientific. Arguing that complex order cannot have occurred randomly as a function of probability is an arguable hypothosis, equally valid of Darwin's unguided evolution.

What is fun, however, is watching the self-important chest puffers proclaim themselves enlightened scientist..while they defend their orthodoxy.

As for Materialism vs Spiritualism, they are philosophy, not science. They attempts to answer why, not how. Materialism (as the term has been used for the last century) is the twisting of the scientific method in order to apply it to philosophy, it has more to do with Marx than science. In fact it is Marxism. Science must remain indifferent to Spiritualism and Materialism.

[101st-Eagle]

As for Materialism vs Spiritualism, they are philosophy, not science. They attempts to answer why, not how. Materialism (as the term has been used for the last century) is the twisting of the scientific method in order to apply it to philosophy, it has more to do with Marx than science. In fact it is Marxism. Science must remain indifferent to Spiritualism and Materialism.

As far as I can see, Gould didn't and Lewontin doesn't think so.