Daphna, on Dec 17 1997 you wrote in the Serendip Forum:

I feel as though I have just been insulted. Of course it is just a feeling, nothing scientific there, and I am probably mistaken, or have misunderstood your missive again.

Could you be specific? Please rephrase your lines; you will understand your thoughts better, and might decide to delete those lines.

I too do very little reading of philosophers unless it is necessary; they are usually too obscure for my tastes... am very interested in the question of why we are here, for what reason. Science has shed much light on how things work, but that does not answer the why.

Your questions on existential meanings are widespread among human beings. Not even dolphins ask, nor are they worried about the possible 'unpleasant' answers.The scientific answer is:
We are here because we evolved from the first molecule(s) which allowed replication. You know about 'Mad cow's' disease and similar. A Nobel price was adjudicated this year to the scientist who some 20 years ago suggested that some peculiar abnormal proteins ('prions') have the property of influencing some normal proteins to adopt the abnormal configuration.
Complex proteins have three dimensions, configuring a net of self-interconnections. Their electromagnetic properties make them powerful in their specific functions of acting on other molecules. In this regard, they constitute the principle of life.
There are many cells in the blood circulation. By definition they constitute particles, being naturally insoluble. There are some fat molecules which float in suspension (insoluble), yet are not inimical to the capillary circulation. Proteins in the bood are soluble. Prions are unnatural --insoluble-- proteins. Eventually, their accumulation results in blocking of capillaries, mainly in the nervous system. Disease results from this phenomenon.
Proteins with special configurations have catalytic properties; they are enzymes. The evolution to enzymatic RNA and then to DNA perfected the pathway toward replicating organisms --true life forms. Perhaps eggs were developed, from which organisms were hatched. Later on, these organisms might have incorporated the eggs. (At any rate, the 'egg' must have preceded the 'chicken,' in the evolutionary sense.)
The Internet and this Serendip Forum developed when Man himself evolved from a primate form, and created the platform for the technological applications required for you and me to be engaged in the present dialogue.
It is quite clear, I would say, why we are here!

...there may be more, such as, 'does God exist?' that is still legitimatly in the realm of philosophy and theology.

The realm of theology is a sacrosanctum, where science is not interested in visiting, and where philosophy would be unwelcome. As for philosophy itself, it has been losing ground under science's onslaught. Medicine is becoming more of a 'science' and less of an 'art', as biology and technology advance. Notice, however, that Medicine is not a Science. Sciences are the study of Natural phenomena. Medicine is a composite of many Sciences, particularly Biology, and of a lot of technological applications.
The study of Linguistics includes the thinking about clear expression of information, where it is called 'Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy,' yet it is a philosophy in the sense of defining a way to approaching the expression of unambiguous, non-abstruse, entirely alethic language.
It is a philosophy because it is neither a science nor an art but a way of thinking.

Now, where does all this considerations place us on the question,..."Is there God,...a God,...one God?"...

Daphna, you are asking me such cosmic question, obviously hoping that I have the answer...Well, I do!
There is no evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being, a Creator of everything. Yet it is practically inconceivable that the Universe was self-created. We have not evolved sufficiently to solve this mystery. Still, the really important point is, the presumed Creator does not show himself (with capital H). All his presumed properties have been invented by theologians. So be it, but, can he influence History? Meaning, can he stay the sun, the moon, part waters, and what not?
But most importantly, can he change 'luck,'? Or is Determinism a fact? If it is, then there is no free will . Science will not offer you a positive answer. So, what can we do?
We go to the most developed latter-day mind, meaning, Albert Einstein. We find that he believed in a Creator, why not, indeed? He said that God "did not play dice," meaning that His physical Laws cannot be bent with ideas of inscapable indeterminacy. Was he wrong? Only in that the Principle of Indeterminacy became recognized as well based. Yet it does not preclude the unbendingness of physical laws. This and more, in spite of of all his humane bent, Einstein did not invoke God nor was he religious. It might be safely assumed that he saw eye to eye with Spinoza. A good 'philosophy of God,' I'd say!

Paul G's. work on free will (at Serendip's Forum) is what drew me into this exchange in the first place, plus the interest in what exactly separates us from the animal kingdom. At this point I don't believe that there is anything that separates us from the state of nature (other animals) except a mistaken idea that humans are somehow special.

I would agree with you, should you delete the words 'mistaken idea' and 'somehow.' Are you ashamed or guilt-ridden for being at the pinnacle of evolution? It's not your fault!

So we think, or even think about thinking, or explore our universe and learn things about it. We could just be a point along the path of evolution, eventually to be thought of --by those who follow us-- as no more than jellyfish.

Agreed! But please do not equate me to a jellyfish. What about 'Homo Somewhat Sapiens'?

But we humans have done serious damage to the environment by believing ourselves to be outside of nature and masters of nature.

Daphna, please include me out of this generalization.

We have pulled the rubberband taut and when it snaps back, it will do so with a vengeance.

Is there anything I can do?

If I have upset you with my simplicity, well I apologize and shall refrain from commenting upon your obviously superior intellectual and scientific musings.

You have stimulated my brain, mind and thinking, thank you. As for my obvious 'superior expostulations,' well, I have made an honest effort to learn from others, during a rather extensive time span. I wish to share the results, because it gives me pleasure.