[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We're not just talking about "the statements of science." We're talking about the assumptions under which science is engaged."

Ok, both are agnostic concerning the existence of God.

""God is not within the purview of science" is not a scientific statement, but an assumption under which certain people prefer to begin their interpretation and explanation of the evidence."

"As long as science is untertaken by human beings it will be subjective to one degree or another."

You don't believe in objectivity either. Another one of your postmodernist credentials exposed. :)

People like you and me who realize you can't make a weighted choice in the matter. Well, one of the Festers anyway. You two (three?) still need to work out that disagreement.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You don't believe in objectivity either.

I believe in objective reality. I also know that humans cannot be completely objective no matter how hard they try. Part of the nature of being human is to be subjective. But the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is not a subjective judgement on my part. By and large it defines objective reality. But how "objective" is a phylogenetic tree that subjectively assumes relationships in morphology constitute relationships in objective history?