[Professor S]

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I want to clarify my points a little further:

1) Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

2) "Proving God". This is an impossibility. Even if God came down from the heavens, turned water into grape juice and and cured all diseases, there would still be those who would disbelieve, and the "scientific theorists" would be the first to do so, because they couldn't "prove" how it happened. If you can't prove it, it never happened, right? There must be some provable explanation or random confluence of events because the alternative is not acceptable and cannot be considered... kind of lile the idea of a higher power sparking life into being.

3) I am not a science bigot, but a science realist. There is a lot that is wrong with the scientific community, and most of it driven by ego and the need to be accepted by peers. Tesla was derided and ignored for decades after his death because a rival scientist (Edison) had the hearts and minds (and money) of the community. The fact that much of the community refuses to accept the possibility of God as an option because it's immmeasurable is not based in scientific evidence to the contrary, it's based in closed minded thinking. One can experiment in finding alternatives while keeping other possibilities available, and when the scientific community makes gross assumptions based on theories (evolutionary theory has been horribly abused and overstated in it's scope) it closes more doors than it opens. No one in mainstream science will even sniff at the idea of challenging many of the current assumptions made from evolutionary theory, and thats a huge cultural problem in science, not a scientific one.

I honestly hope that every scientist available puts as much effort available towards determining the origins of life and every other mystery of the universe, and I hope they find answers to all their questions, but considering devine alternatives is not a detriment to this process if one thinks objectively, and can in fact open up new avenues to explore because it asks that we try and prove thewories instead of just assuming they are true.