We can look at a painting determine it was painted by a painter, and then go looking for the painter. Both processes need be nothing but rational investigations with measures taken to avoid error.
Untrue. It could only observe what came about as a result of the outside process (One would have to assume that if one created something that the creation would not be the creator as that defies logic). For example, we can describe a painting because of its properties, we cannot know who the artist is based solely on the picture itself. But rather to know the painter we would have to know more than what the painting is. This is a weak summerization of the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (The first book in no way promotes any form of religion but rather takes a direct approach of how we can know things.)
Movements like ID try and demonstrate that life shows definable signs of intelligent design, the approach seems to be valid, it's just that it fails. _In principle_ it could have suceeded.
Science could _in principle_ discover lots about the intelligence involved, whether it be an alien race, or a single/multiple Gods. Prior to a decent understanding of cosmoloy people literally thought the kingdom heaven resided in the sky, in fact the first ever astronauts first words were (paraphrased) "there ain't no God up here", so again _in principle_ there could have been, the astronaut could have found heaven repleat with pearly gates, want to know about God? Just ask the angels standing around strumming their harps. It's just that's not what we found, that's not what science has found or is finding.
That's nonsense, atheists are as ethical as theists yet we do not buy into a cosmic "why". What's more that logic is horribly wrong: the validity of a "why" question in the manner you are referring to is dependent on the real nature of the universe around us (whether we do infact have a purpose is a factual question), that does not change just because we want to be able to use a system of ethics.
A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.
Again that's nonsense, do you see evolutionary biologists going around thieving, killing etc. etc. Dawkins is the most radical neo-Darwinist, evolutions greatest protagonist, the definition of atheism and yet a liberal.
Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner
Evolution tells us nothing what so ever about morality, evolution tells us simply how the phenotype of a species changes over time.
That's wrong as well, as i pointed out earlier the question "why" can be taken in many different contexts, if i asked "Why is it you can't see the stars at night?" That "why" is NOT a 'purpose' "why" at all indeed your original question "why does the human race exist" can be taken in different ways.
You contradict yourself with your own question: "Why does there need to be a why" to ask a question such as that. Why is it that -insert fact here- is and what does that entail.
The question "What reason is there for believeing that every phenomena has a purpose" is the same question Govt asked rephrased and is not contradictory at all.
In a sense that's true but i don't think its true for the reason your thinking of, science does not offer certainty as such one is only ever left with probable answers not definate ones, but there is no way of avoiding that and i don't see how that's relevent to our current discussion.
Science can open certain doors and close others as far as possibility of something (becasue it contradicts true science) but it cannot answer which possibility is correct
Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act
But you said
which is the entire point I have been trying to get across...
Evolutionary biology is simply science. What's more i agree that science does not say anything directly about ethics (though science says stuff of relevence to ethics), but thats because we make ethics up, ethics are not aspects of the universe 'out there' they are social rules that we maintain, we can understand ethics from a sociobiological point of view, and that understanding might in part help us form new systems of ethics but ultimately ethics is not about the 'truth' and so science isn't directly involved.
Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner.