Toni and everyone
Although some people (not just men, also women!) involved in science do
believe in a God, and some in creation (although in a bizarre act of mental
agility and self deceit some not in both!) this certainly is no evidence of
creation. Just because you cannot fathom out how something is the way it is,
you cannot ascribe an unknown explanatory force that will give you some type
of satisfactory answer. What you have here, and what the creationists always
hold as their main-force argument, is called the argument from design. Very
popular in Victorian Britain with some of the intelligentsia and one of the
main obstacles in many people's mind regarding how things could evolve. A
popular example is the development of the eye. I think we all know this one.
How can an eye just come about? Well look for stages that are extant, all
the way from eye pits to the intricate vertebrate and cephalopod eye. No
mystery there. When you look at the elements that constitute a structure,
and then search for evidence in phylogeny, hey! you get answers to some of
these 'mysteries' (and you've done a little science along the way).
You need to re-read Attenboroug's work and see it in context. Some
creationists have quoted this popular author (incorrectly, mostly) and used
the quotes as evidence from a 'distinguished top-level scientist'. As to
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Richard Dawkins has already effectively destroyed
their anti-evolutionist arguments in dramatic fashion. In fact, if you only
have time to read one book to give a really good account of the argument
from design etc. etc. and how evolution works then read Dawkins' book 'The
Blind Watchmaker'.
Remember one very important point. You cannot, in science, or any other
discipline, use what people BELIEVE as evidence. This latter comes from
data, observation and its interpretation. And in science you must have
hypotheses that can be tested. Sadly, but correctly, many scientists 'let
pass by' much of the nonsense and weak arguments put out by creationists and
their 'allies'. But maybe a stance should be taken sometimes and I think
this is important.
There are many texts on science and religion and the evolution (no pun
intended!) of the thoughts and explanations given by many authors through
history. Reading some of these texts is a good way to get a feel of how
things have changed through time. I like to think that science and religion
(and associated concepts such as creation, etc.) are ways in which people
try to explain what they see around them. The main difference, of course, is
that science is based on observation, data, testable hypotheses, evidence
etc. etc. and religious beliefs are based mostly on faith. They are two
completely different ways of looking at the world and explaining it. I know
some scientific people are happy holding both systems active as explanatory,
I (as well as many other people) quite frankly think this is a bit of a
cop-out! In fact some I know, who are like this, have a self-imposed
intellectual dichotomy going on. They daren't really question their
religious belief systems in a scientific framework, they want to keep both
going for ease (itself a consequence of the evolution of the human brain and
behaviour!).
Anyway, I shall end, because this forum is not really the place for this
type of discussion (at least not to the extent and depth which might be
needed). To end I will make the statement that the very reason we are
talking about these points and contemplating them, weighing out what is true
and what isn't, trying to find answers to questions and explanations, is as
a direct result of the evolutionary process. There is no goal in evolution.
Structures do not try to evolve, there is no possibility of purposely
evolving into something to become better than anything else. It is all
mostly a result of randomn and accidental processes. In other words, if
things had been a little different somewhere back (very back) in geological
time, then it may have been group of cephalopods discussing all this (this
last sentence makes this shell-related, I think).
I end my contribution to this line of discussion with this posting.
Alex