[RadioAstronomer]

however it would not nullify the possibility that a "creator" existed for steps leading up to abiogenesis (such as creation of the cosmos, formation of the planets, etc).

I agree completely. Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date. As that data is revised and new discoveries are made, the models themselves must also be revised to incorporate the new data.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date. As that data is revised and new discoveries are made, the models themselves must also be revised to incorporate the new data.

That sounds real good and doubtless many scientists do just as you say, but the field of evolution and abiogenesis specificially excludes the possibility of a creator so the data is never revised in that direction regardless of the evidence.

The Blind Atheist

[Sabertooth]

Science does should not take a stand one way or the other on a creator.

Can I get an "Amen" for scientific agnosticism?

[Pistias]

Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date

Isn't that taking a stance on the possibility of miracles, at least? After all, fitting data to known physical laws assumes that the condition studied didn't just "happen"--i.e., a miracle or Creation by super-reasonable forces.