open system theory applied to evolution., page-228

Hi Director12,

I enjoyed your reply. As a practicing Scientist I also have to agree with Einstein's quote "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher."

But the reverse is also very true, as I'm sure he would have agreed and for the reasons of bias and pre-meditation I stated earlier.

To respond to Dawkins quote I for one never had placed, or placed myself, God on the left and Science on the right and weighed up the evidence, as it could be argued a philosopher would. For me it was the draw of the frontier, the excitement for the new and the chance to further the human species whether through gaining knowledge or practicality that was my drive even as a child. To which, and as every scientist does, I looked for consilience, the evidence gained from so many scientific papers from so many angles and scope all pointing to Darwin's theory remaining solid even after all this time.

I simply came to the conclusion that God must not exist as he does not fit into this world, I simply don't see him anywhere or in anything and I argue that if one removes the bias already assumed when one believes then I say you would find it hard to find him too.

In saying that though, if God were to exist then I'm sure he wouldn't have to try too hard to outsmart a few scientists if he wanted to. But at the end of the day, and I mean the very end if I were to be placed before him I would simply say "Well Played" as I don't think he would have any problem with scientists such as myself trying to unravel the mystery of such a wonderful universe many argue he created.

BTW, those who always point out gaps in current knowledge have always been forced to rethink and raise that bar, science moves slowly and carefully, just because science cannot 100% explain where, when ,how and why something like the eye evolved doesn't mean it didn't or that science will not work it out, assuming that is even considered important. A flawed and null argument IMO.

To add to your last section Director12. A person of religion, a person of law, a person of philosophy or anyone else cannot be a scientist or in charge of science, Only scientists should be in charge, and though you could argue that the minister of science may not have at all times been a scientist, it was still an avenue for science, it is so important that science is never diluted or polluted as it is only pure when it is whole and if it only serves to document gods worldly creations then so bit it.