More of a philosophical question, I guess, but hopefully still based on biology and science in general.

Science hits a dead as far as the formation of biotic phenomena is concerned, and that makes sense to me because our geological records are far from perfect; not a lot is preserved. and science acknowledges its limits there.

On the other hand, unscientific people want "Ultimate Answers" and are happy to oblige anything they read which entertains an answer to that begging question of OOL. They find it easy to invoke some sort of god at that point.

Why is it that some people want easy answers considering how complex the universe is? Is there a god? Who knows, but if there is, that god is outside our ability to quantify it. Why don't average people engage in scientific discussion and look at current data as opposed to some old books which offer comfort but no real answers?

I guess my question is, amongst biologists, me not being a biologist but being hopefully smart enough to say "If there is a god, we don't know; but all of our data says "no", why are so many people, scientists and religious people alike, willing to admit ther is or is not a larger 'thing' here?

The world would make a lot more sense to me if we admitted our ignorance.

How can you say "God is true" in a world with no real proof of that claim, and how can you say "There is no God" as a scientist when we all admit that there are limits to what we know at this point?

My biology question revolves around convergent evolution. I see a limited universe in my limited head, where there are only so many ways that biology, chemistry, physics and environments can interact; and as a result, I see convergent evolution as natural. Is it possible that this is all that is required in order to create a functional, moving world where evolution simply moves according to the ecological and other scientifc constraints of physics and chemistry? Why must convergence be such a hot topic when it seems clear to my rather uneducated mind that convergence is nothing more that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology all doing their thing interactively in the real world?

I get so frustrated at this entire question. Where I try to see physics, biology and chemistry abiding by the laws of physics, others see a thousand ways to lead us back into the stone age.

With regards your philosophical discussion, check out Russell's Teapot [], which is a philosophical argument for why it doesn't make sense for everyone to say "well maybe there is a god" (which in itself would require 'god' to be defined first). However, each to their own etc...

I'm not sure what your issue is with convergent evolution. We see it multiple times in the living world.