[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Case]

[Platt] 
It seems to me if there is a problem about what the term "science" 
means it's a problem not that we have, but that you have. Some people
call astrology a science, but that doesn't make it so. Previously I
described the faith-based assumptions of science. I have yet to see
anyone disprove those assumptions, nor to the best of my knowledge
have the laws of gravitation, motion, thermodynamics and others of
classical science been revoked by the scientific community. They still
apply full force to the everyday world we inhabit. But science has yet to
adequately explained how life overcomes many of the these same forces,
as Pirsig so amusingly pointed out in Chap. 11 of Lila in his description
of your typical chemistry professor. So science has its limits, as do all
human endeavors.

[Case]
I agree that science is founded on faith. It begins with unprovable
assumptions. But I would like to point out that you would be hard pressed to
find someone who believes astrology is science. Intelligent design? Now that
is faith based "science" and unfortunately some people do believe it is
science. I would also add that the laws of gravitation and motion were put
forth to replace Aristotelian science. Thermodynamics was the first
challenge to classical mechanics.

Science has no need to explain how life overcomes these forces since it does
not. It operates with the full support and cooperation of the laws of
nature. It could not do otherwise.

While science may have limits, it has aided greatly in overcoming the far
greater limits that were in place before it stepped up to the plate.