Matt: [i]What has happened, is that evolution was made synonymous with atheism, and design with creationism.[/i] > > Spot on, and the result has been muddled thinking on a monumental scale. The fundamentalists on both sides are simply incapable of removing their blinkers. Dawkins' equation of evolution with abiogenesis ("[i]Evolution is the creator of life[/i]") is just one example, but it is an insidious one because it gives the impression that science supports atheism. In your other post, you observe that "[i]science is operationally agnostic[/i]". Right again, but some scientists are not. > > One needs to establish a balance here, though. Science should be objective, but I see no reason at all why scientists should not draw their own subjective conclusions from their studies. -Today I tumbled upon a blog discussion at "First Things", a Catholic blogsite, (I look everywhere for discussions at the level of this website) and there is a sharp interchange about evolutionary psychology. Stephen M Barr, whose book, "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith", argues they are compatable. He is a prof of physics at U. Delaware. But he also supports making up theories that are commonsensable and that these theories are science!- http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/09/14/why-women-hate-snakes/- Note Barr's comment on 9/16. that is what I am referring to.