The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, February 06, 2008, 18:35 (6133 days ago)
In my response to dhw in the "Teapot Agnosticism" thread I concluded, referring to the combinatorial chemical processes that seem likely to have led to the first replicating systems: "The postulation of a "designer" to guide these processes is just so over-the-top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering." - Peter P. in the "Origin of Life" thread now says: "Let me get this straight. It's your belief that life originated by accident." I thought I'd made it quite clear that my view is that the most likely explanation of the orign of life (abiogenesis) is in a step-by-step process, probably including some "accidents" (e.g. two chemicals happening to come into contact and combining or reacting to produce a result that has not previously occurred) but also involving physical and chemical processes determined by the usual physical and chemical forces. I don't think "life originated by accident" is an accurate precis of that! - The process above described needs no other postulations or assumptions than the existing state of knowledge of physics and chemistry. - The alternative hypothesis being put forward is that the earliest replicating systems did not arise by the natural processes outlined above, but were carried out by the deliberate interventions of a "designer". But how exactly this designer acted is unclear. Did he just say "Let there be Life!" and Lo there was Life and it was Good, "Just Like That!", sheer Magic? Or did he dip his noodly apendages into the chemical mess and deliberately move some atoms around so that the necessary "accidents" could occur? Or is it sacrilege to enquire into His Holy Methods?
The Postulation of a Designer
Setting up a thread under The Postulation of a Designer is a silly ploy. Someone says to you that he's not convinced by the chance theory, and you respond by pretending he's postulating intelligent design. Then you say yah boo (in your case, "Just like that!" sheer Magic?). I'm an agnostic, which means I don't know if God exists or not, and I don't know how life orginated. I'm not postulating anything. Your the one who is postulating: 1) that life originated in a "step-by-step process" through the "usual p[hysical and chemical forces"; 2] that belief in a designer is "not worth considering". Let's look at what you have to say then. - You say "life originated by accident" is not an accurate précis of your belief. You believe it was a step-by-step process, "probably including some accidents". Ah, so a step-by-step process including accidents doesn't count as accident. "Probably", though. So what's the alternative, if there were no accidents? - "The process above described"..."the natural processes outlined above". You haven't described or outlined any processes. You've just said the usual physical and chemical processes. But you don't need to give us a description or an outline ... there are loads of websites that do. Except that the only thing the abiogeniuses seem to agree on is that none of their theories actually work. Some of them think that eventually their theory might work. Some of them even think that none of the theories will work without a guiding, designing hand. If its all so simple and natural, why on earth can't the experts agree? Why can't they work it out? Why can't they emulate it? Why so many different theories with so many different faults in them? - But if you believe in something that hasn't been proved or e4ven come remotely near being proved, that's entirely your affair. What gets my goat is your ridicule of other people's beliefs. "How exactly this designer acted is unclear" you say. I agree. I'll say that again. I agree. Now tell me how exactly all the bits and pieces happened to come together. There's not a scientist on earth who can tell us. Maybe there never will be. That's why I'm an agnostic, and I get cheesed off with bigotry, whether it's theist or atheist.
The Postulation of a Designer
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, February 08, 2008, 20:25 (6131 days ago) @ Peter P
Peter P says: "I'm an agnostic, /// I don't know how life orginated. I'm not postulating anything." - OK, so why are you getting so worked up about the issue then? Or am I getting the wrong impression? - All I've pointed out are the most likely routes by which life may have originated, based on current knowledge of physics and chemistry. - I was hoping those who do postulate a "Grand Old Designer" would give some indication of how they think this entity goes about its business. - Is it in fact possible to distinguish whether two atoms come together by "accident" or as tne result of G.O.D. action?
The Postulation of a Designer
I'll try not to get "worked up" because maybe you're not as fundamentalist as you sound. What lit the fuse was your statement under Origin of Life: "The postulation of a "designer" to guide this process is just so over the top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering." We needn't mess around with different concepts ... let's call the designer God (Grand Old Designer ... nice one!) If the existence of God is not even worth considering, then according to you the opinions of believers (who postulate) and agnostics (who are prepared to consider the possibility) are not worth considering, and I find that offensive. Quite apart from the fact that you don't think the opinions of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Planck, Heisenberg etc. are worth considering, your telling an agnostic like myself that my opinion is not worth considering, and in fact the opinion of anyone who is not an atheist is not worth considering. Your grounds are that in spite of the lack of any scientific concensus, you believe that life originated through a combination of accident and natural chemical processes. But your last entry is much more moderate in tone: "the most likely routes by which life may have originated". OK, that's your belief and that's fine if you put it that way. I just don't want to be told that any other view is not worth considering. That to me is bigotry. Pax?
The Postulation of a Designer
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, February 11, 2008, 20:54 (6128 days ago) @ Peter P
Perhaps I need to explain in more detail why I consider that "The postulation of a 'designer' to guide this process is just so over the top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering." - What does it take to be a designer? Intelligence, to be able to formulate a design. Power, to move atoms around to form the necessary configurations. Unless of course it doesn't actually have to do anything but sit around and let the natural processes proceed as they will over eons. But then it might as well not exist. - But what evidence is there that there is any such entity, and if it exists how did it come into existence? Presumably it must have evolved. More probably it was not working alone but as part of a committee or research project! We can imagine that these beings were the end-product of evolution in an earlier universe. Of course this is just science fiction. But so also is any other scenario involving a creator-being. We usually call it a "myth" to give it more dignity than a mere "fiction". - If we want to believe in such a being or beings, which myth do we choose to believe? There are so many possibilities we could think of. All of them are improbable compared with the minimal assumptions necessary, namely that it was all a natural process, not needing the input of any deus ex machina. - In the absence of other evidence of the existence of such a being it is sensible to shelve the idea.
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Thursday, February 21, 2008, 17:04 (6118 days ago) @ George Jelliss
"If we want to believe in such a being or beings, which myth do we choose to believe? There are so many possibilities we could think of. All of them are improbable compared with the minimal assumptions necessary, namely that it was all a natural process, not needing the input of any deus ex machina. In the absence of other evidence of the existence of such a being it is sensible to shelve the idea." - Couldn't agree more, George. This website seems to be based on a false premise: that the only rational response to the absence (as yet) of a credible explanation for abiogenesis (or other serious gaps in our current knowledge) is to postulate a designer outside the natural processes who decided for an unknown or unknowable reason to act upon it to kickstart evolution and maybe again at different times once it got going. That leads to the grossest caricature of an argument: the author seems to be saying that it's your accidental Boeing 747 versus an interventionist deity and the implausability of either leaves him no option but agnosticism. - But stop right there! Isn't this to fall into the same trap as the dim creationists who are fond of arguing that, because we do not understand some issues relating to the evolution of life on Earth and Genesis offers an alternative explanation, Genesis is not just the only alterative but one that deserves parity as a scientific theory? They're bonkers of course and so, I'm tempted to add, are this author's reasons for being an agnostic. - Remember: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we don't yet understand how nature behaves is not evidence that there is no natural explanation. - This is really basic stuff. But it gets worse: when you refelct for a moment, it's the God-of-the-gaps back again! He never really seems to go away, does he? Except the gaps have got considerably tighter and they will continue to squeeze him away to nothing if this is the best his defenders can come up with! - But there is another hidden assumption that has to be acknowledged (one could call it a "leap of faith" if that term weren't so loaded). The serious biological disciplines around abiogenetics must be - what? - a few decades old at most. To assume that homo sapiens will not find a naturalistic explanation is a bold statement. "Never" is a very long time, after all. The possibilty is more than conceivable and I think it is probable. <Whisper!> There's really no need to postulate the Sky God. - If the author will permit me to be blunt, I agree with the criticism in the "Are You Really An Agnostic?" thread, I'm afraid. He has postulated a designer, I think without any reasonable justification, so I will postulate something about him. I have to say that anyone who takes seriously the notion that, because we do not yet understand the chemical processes that gave rise to life, we are faced with "blind chance" or the Sky-God explanation, is basically a crypto-theist. Sorry, but this website does not read like the author is genuinely torn equally between theism and atheism. So he'll become atheist the minute the abiogeneticists come up with a plausible theory? Hmmmm... doesn't seem likely to me. The author formally adopts an agnostic position, but the false dichotomy he presents suggests to me that he really wants to be an old-fashioned theist. That's fine: I am told that religion is very comforting and I hope he will eventually find peace with his Sky God when he overcomes his doubts.
The Postulation of a Designer
"This website seems to be based on a false premise: that the only rational response to the absence (as yet) of a credible explanation for abiogenesis (or other serious gaps in our current knowledge) is to postulate a designer outside the natural processes who decided for an unknown or unknowable reason to act upon it to kickstart evolution and maybe again at different times once it got going." - I'm not sure this is the case. I take the site as saying that the wisest response to the absence of any satisfactory naturalistic or non-naturalistic account of abiogenesis is to adopt a position of agnosticism towards the question of how life emerged from non-life. - Of course, adopting a position of agnosticism with regard to the matter of how life emerged from non-life does not mean (as it does for sceptics like Clifford) that one ought therefore to withhold one's belief/suspend one's judgement with regard to the matter. Belief and knowledge are different affairs, and agnosticism entails only that we cannot claim for our beliefs the certainty concerning their truth that we can claim for genuine knowledge. An agnostic could, following Russell's ethic, give his or her assent to (i.e. believe) the account of abiogenesis s/he finds the most reasonable in relation to the existing state of his or her own understanding and experience. Alternatively, following the ethic of William James, an agnostic could believe that account of abiogenesis which s/he finds most useful or satisfying in the way of belief. - The thing is that agnosticism in relation to any matter neither rules out nor endorses any of the range of possible beliefs concerning that matter. It rules out only knowledge-claims and claims to the certain truth of one's beliefs.
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 17:54 (6113 days ago) @ whitecraw
Not quite, I would say. I think we are in danger of fundamentally confusing two types of claim. - The term agnosticism is usually taken to refer to metaphysics (and in particular, claims about what is knowable about God) and NOT claims to knowledge about the world that are capable of being verified (or falsified, if you prefer) - i.e. scientific claims. One never hears of a scientist saying "I am agnostic over whether this chemical will have this effect in these circumstances", or "I am agnostic about string theory", unless by "agnostic" she is speaking figuratively, meaning that she is simply unsure, or sceptical or merely open-minded. To suggest that she may be making a theological reference or a claim about her position in relation to the divine would be preposterous. - I am reminded here of Wittgenstein's remark in the Tractatus: "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists". Another thinker whose identity I've forgotten, said the similar thing when he said that all phenomena of nature are natural. It's simple logic. If phenomena (that is to say, events in the world) are not natural, then by definition they represent an event or events outside the operation of the laws of nature, which is the typical definition of a miracle. - There's no getting around it: if dwh isn't postulating a designer, he is at least postulating the POSSIBILITY of a designer to account for something that is as yet unknown. By doing so, he is not demonstrating the ordinary scepticism that a rational person needs to adopt to make sense of any truth claim. He is not saying: "We don't yet know the answer, but we can be sure that, whatever the explanation, it's natural one". He is disagreeing with Wittgenstein and that other thinker. He seems to be saying: "We don't know the answer, so one explanation might be a miracle". - On miracles, he would be well advised to consult Hume. I make the strong claim that miracles do not occur. That is not how the world, as observed thus far, appears to go about its business. The burden of proof on anyone postulating a miraculous explanation for an event of nature is so great that they could never satisfy it. - The appearance of life of Earth, however amazing or apparently unlikely, is an event in the world. It may be accounted for by postulating a vast number of Earth-like planets within the known universe (or in a series of universes, the so-called "Multiverse") - thereby making it very likely that this will be a life-producing Cosmos, notwithstanding that life arising on any particular planet may be vanishingly small. Do we need God to explain how things are in the world? I have no need of that hypothesis, and neither should dwh. - As an explanation for the existence of the Cosmos, I have heard it argued many times that the idea of God has some explanatory power. (I am open-minded on that score and, I suppose, that makes me an agnostic). But as a possible explanation for the appearance of life on THIS Planet Earth, it has none at all. Given that dwh seems to be saying that he is an agnostic for that reason, it is, with great respect to him, an incoherent reason.
The Postulation of a Designer
In response to John Clinch's interpretation of the website, whitecraw writes: "I take the site as saying that the wisest response to the absence of any satisfactory naturalistic or non-naturalistic account of abiogenesis is to adopt a position of agnosticism towards the question of how life emerged from non-life." Precisely. - As I am unable to take sides, I consider all possibilities. This is where some of our correspondents have completely missed the point, and ... if I may be as blunt as you, John ... there are a number of statements which show that you are one of them. - You quote and support George Jelliss: "In the absence of other evidence of the existence of such a being, it is sensible to shelve the idea." (The "evidence" George is referring to is myth.) Once you have made up your mind, it is easy enough to dismiss what some people regard as "other evidence" ... e.g. out-of-body experiences, ESP, spiritualism, healing etc. and the strange fact that many human societies have similar "myths" in common. There is a vast body of literature recording these experiences, and there are countless numbers of people who take them seriously. Of course they are not scientifically proven (nor for that matter is abiogenesis), but the scope of science is limited. While I cannot commit myself to a belief in psychic phenomena or to ideas that have been espoused or at least not rejected by some of the most brilliant minds in human history (including Darwin), unlike yourself and George I cannot dismiss them either. "Remember," you say, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That is a two-edged sword, and if it applies to abiogenesis, it applies to other theories as well. - You equate my arguments with those of the Creationists, who believe that "Genesis is not just the only alternative but one that deserves parity as a scientific theory." There is no suggestion anywhere in my writing that I regard Genesis as a scientific theory. The section entitled "Origins" contains my views on Genesis, together with my views on various other creation myths. To save you the trouble of reading them, let me quote my own conclusion: "I find all these concepts as incredible as that of chance-created life, heredity and adaptability, and that of a benign deity who, in six days 6000 years ago, conjured up heaven and earth and every single form of life..." - You write: "To assume that homo sapiens will not find a naturalistic explanation is a bold statement. 'Never' is very long time, after all." There is no such assumption in my writing. I concur with George Jelliss, however, when he asks: "Is it in fact possible to distinguish whether two atoms come together by "accident" or as the result of G.O.D [his famous Grand Old Designer] action?" Obviously it isn't. However, if scientists do eventually discover how life came about, and if the explanation turns out to be as simple and natural as you and George think, and chance does seem to be the best bet, then it may indeed influence my beliefs. But I can only base these on what I know at the moment, and I need more knowledge before I can take what you are reluctant (but I am not) to call a "leap of faith". - "He has postulated a designer." No I haven't. (Postulate = to assume to be true or existent.) I have examined the alternative to chance, and looked at what has been said about it. And I have found it equally unconvincing. But at least I have considered the "evidence", and until I am able take your "leap of faith" either way, I shall remain open-minded. - "He really wants to be an old-fashioned theist. That's fine: I am told that religion is very comforting and I hope he will eventually find peace with his Sky God when he overcomes his doubts." I am grateful for the implied good wishes, but alas the "evidence" I have examined makes religion anything but comforting, and my vision of the "Sky God" is extremely disturbing, as you would have found out had you read the relevant sections. - This is, I'm afraid, a trait common to many who have made up their minds: they see what they want to see, and ignore the rest. Well, I can do no better than quote whitecraw again: "agnosticism neither rules out nor endorses any of the range of possible beliefs." That is precisely my position.
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 13:14 (6113 days ago) @ dhw
Then you'll believe or disbelieve anything. I need a good reason to admit the possibility of miracles. I refer you to the excellent discussion in the "Teapot Agnostic" thread and my previous posting. - You condemn me for having "made up my mind", ie. adopted a closed position. But science doesn't close the mind. It is not a position but a method, to be applied to all reasonable hypotheses. I have "made up my mind" only in the sense that I have reached the position that, based on logic and on the evidence thus far yielded up by scientific discovery and what I believe will be reasonably possible throughout the rest of human history, the explanation for the origin on life will be a natural one. See my other, latest, posting in this thread for why I have done so on the grounds of logic. - Show me conclusive evidence of a miracle, of God's intervention to disturb the laws of nature - just one - and all bets are off. But, so far, all phenomena of nature have revealed themselves to be wholly natural - ALL of them - and this provides powerful inductive support for the logical deductive statement that anything of nature cannot by definition be supernatural, mystical or metaphysical. And the magisterium of science covers the whole of Nature. Science, remember, is not a subject or a body of knowledge, but a method - and the only reliable one we have to distinguish between truth claims about Nature. - Your comments on what you call "out of body experiences, ESP, spiritualism, healing etc" are revealing of a very profound difference between us. These so-called phenomena are much more than merely unproven: the scientific explanations for them have a much greater explanatory power than... than what? There has been no other advanced. The evidence that we are encountering supernatural phenomena in any human society on the planet is so piss-poor as to be risible - and Fortean Times doesn't count! The brilliant de-bunker James Randi's $1m prize for a repeatable experiment that proves telepathy actually happens has had NO takers. None. Zilch. Have you ever been to a "spiritualist" gathering? A rather ugly, pitiful affair full of gullible and often vulnerable people, or spirits genuinely paying a visit to members of the audience through a self-appointed "medium". Take your pick, but I know what is the more reasonable to believe. You've heard of "alien abduction", right? People experiencing hynopompic hullucinations when awakening from deep sleep or aliens visiting earth and kidnapping Americans to probe their genitals? Take your pick, but I know what is the more reasonable explanation. - I say that if psychological phenomena like "out of body experiences, ESP, spiritualism, healing etc" are open to scientific investigation, so are physical phenomena such as abiogenesis. There is no good reason to suppose that the reach of the scientific method, in principle, must stop anywhere in Nature. - If a person's mind is "open" to the possibility of hocus-pocus explanations, or orbiting teapots, that's their privelege, but they shouldn't expect sceptical people to agree. So, speaking personally, of ESP etc I am a sceptic because of the sheer dirth of evidence. Of anti-evolutionists, I am sceptical of the sceptics because overwhelmingly the evidence points the other way. My sceptical approach to truth claims has led me to a position on these two issues which accords with the conclusions of science. - But your approach seems to me to be incoherent. On the one hand you seem to be adopting a radical sceptical position as regards abiogenesis by doubting that humanity will EVER satisfactorily explain life (for no good reason and I'm still not sure why). However, you seem to want to suspend scepticism where it matters - to distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false. "ESP, spiritualism etc" belongs firmly in the latter category. Yes, in a limited, Humean sense, science hasn't disproved the truth of ESP etc - just as it hasn't disproved the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden - but it has presented a perfectly good explanation for it all. That you don't want to accept these explanations is revealing. It suggests to me that you still hanker after those fairies. From that there is but a short leap to the Sky God.
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 14:59 (6113 days ago) @ John Clinch
Of course! It has just occurred to me that the common element in your thinking appears to be that you are sceptical of science itself. - You are, for no coherent reason that I can understand, sceptical of the ability of science ever to explain life. Fair enough. But you are also, for no good reason, sceptical of the psychological, neurological, ethological and anthroplogical claims that together form a coherent complex of reasons that account for the pseudo-scientific so-called phenomena you refer to ("out of body, ESP etc"). - I'm not saying that you are a creationist, or a new ager, or a UFO conspiracy theorist, or someone who believes in astrology or the healing power of crystals, but it is striking that all those categories of nonsense exhibit a baseless contempt for the scientific method. They are all utterly credulous or willfully doubtful in the teeth of all the evidence - and often both simultaneously! - The way I read it, you, like they, doubt the effectiveness and reach of evidence-based science - albeit in a milder, more reasoned, way. It's like being sceptical of scepticism itself. It's like doubting rationality. If you are sceptical of scepticism, you have no good reason to believe or disbelieve anything. Go down that road and you end up with nihilism, or solipsism, or radical relativism. You won't be alone exactly - there's a lot of anti-science about - but I daresay the company ain't great.
The Postulation of a Designer
I am touched by your desire to psychoanalyse me and your evident concern that I might end up with the nihilists, solipsists or radical relativists. But please don't worry about me. These are people who, like yourself, are convinced that they have found a truth, and I am far too open-minded to join them. - Perhaps, however, you will allow me to do a little psychoanalysing myself. You appear to have made up your mind that one day science will explain life and that somehow this will prove that it came about by chance; you appear to have made up your mind that psychic experiences have already been explained away by psychology etc.; you appear to have made up your mind that anyone who does not have the same beliefs as yourself is sceptical of science and of reason. Open-mindedness is therefore irrational, because you already have the answers. - But let us look at your arguments. I am supposed to be "...for no good reason, sceptical of the psychological, neurological, ethological and anthropological claims that...account for the pseudo-scientific so-called phenomena you refer to (out of body, ESP etc.)." I suspect that most people who believe in them will tell you that they are beyond the scope of science, not that they purport to be scientific. I am neither sceptical towards nor convinced by the various explanations you list, but you seem to equate non-belief with rejection, which is part of your misunderstanding of agnosticism. I keep an open mind. - You think I doubt the "effectiveness and reach of evidence-based science". I do not have the slightest doubt about the effectiveness of evidence-based science. Modern technology alone proves how effective it is. And since you prefer to imagine my beliefs rather than read about them (neatly symbolized, incidentally, by your own version of my initials in your response to whitecraw), you will probably be surprised to learn that ... with certain reservations ... I am even a firm believer in the theory of evolution by natural selection. I find the evidence convincing. But the evidence for abiogenesis does not convince me, any more than the evidence for a God-created world convinces me. And I do not know how far evidence-based science can reach, because I do not know whether the physical world as we perceive it is all that there is to perceive. I keep an open mind. - "Sceptical of scepticism"? Like your advocacy of the "absence of evidence principle" this is a two-edged sword. You are sceptical about religious beliefs, and so any scepticism towards your scepticism is a bad thing. But if someone is sceptical about your faith that one day science will come up with all the answers, you will be sceptical about their scepticism, and that is a good thing. I will own to a degree of scepticism about the following dogmas: 1) one day science will explain everything and thereby disprove the existence of a designer; 2) we are the product of a designer who created the world and everything in it. I cannot make what you are reluctant to call the "leap of faith" to embrace 1), and I cannot make what you would no doubt happily call the "leap of faith" to embrace 2). My scepticism in both cases, however, is tentative, because one of those two choices contains part if not all of the truth. I keep an open mind. That is the nature of agnosticism.
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Tuesday, March 04, 2008, 17:41 (6106 days ago) @ dhw
Be careful you're not so open-minded that your brain falls out. I agree that it can be difficult for some people to know to what extent they should be open to fresh ideas and to what extent this openness should be tempered by scepticism. Sometimes, the rational thing is to be receptive to new possibilities (e.g. SETI was set up because maybe one day we may make contact with an alien civilisation) and sometimes it is downright stupid (e.g. trying to make contact with fairies at the bottom of the garden when you've dropped a tab of acid). The scientific method provides the necessary degree of discrimination. - The fact that you admitted to being open-minded about ESP and all that hokum does rather suggest that open-mindedness has its hazards. I'm afraid that it is just plain silly to imagine that perfectly workaday events like remarkable coincidences, being spooked in a creaky old house, or the cold-calling of gullible people is evidence of anything other than the suggestibility of weak creatures like ourselves with a human nature designed (obviously not literally) to make patterns of nature. Science has demonstrated that we do so frequently when there is no real pattern at all. So, let's get real, shall we? Houses aren't haunted - people are. Watch Darren Brown, for goodness' sake. - To argue that these so-called phenomena are somehow outside the scope of science really will not do. Sorry, but with the greatest respect, to deploy such a childish argument hugely undermines your broader case for agnosticism. You'll be telling me you're a conspiracy theorist next. - Loads of people are "open-minded" about whether the Holocaust happened (though thankfully they are mainly isolated on the pro-Nazi fringes); or about whether Apollo 11 landed on the moon; or that Islamist fundamentalists were responsible for the 9/11 atrocities. They can believe what they like - as can you - but they shouldn't expect grown-ups to pay much heed (except to counter their often poisonous influence).
The Postulation of a Designer
by John Clinch , London, Wednesday, March 05, 2008, 13:58 (6106 days ago) @ dhw
A point of order. You said:- - "I will own to a degree of scepticism about the following dogmas: 1) one day science will explain everything and thereby disprove the existence of a designer; 2) we are the product of a designer who created the world and everything in it". - You can do better than that, surely? Who seriously DOES believe the statement that "one day science will explain everything and thereby disprove the existence of a designer"? Not me, not anyone I know and not even, I dare suggest, Mr Dawkins either. - See my posting of today's date in the "near to death episodes" thread on the point of inherent limitations to scientific study and where that should leave us in relation to reality that cannot be observed or tested. - It's just that I am confident that it will explain abiogenesis and, I reiterate, if THAT is the issue that makes you an agnostic, it's a God-of-the-gaps argument you're using (or, I guess, an agnostic-of-the-gaps in your case). And we all know that, historically, the proponents of such arguments always end up eating humble pie (unless they're died-in-the-wool ignorami). - You need a sounder premise.