Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, May 07, 2009, 08:59 (5678 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I don't see why the idea that replicating molecules can arise by natural processes requires faith. Since living things now exist and before there were only non-replicating molecules, it is self-evident that something happened. Where faith is required is in supposing that this process was guided by some pre-existing intelligence rather than that it happened naturally. - A neat introduction to the agnostic's dilemma! You are right: living things exist, and so it is self-evident that something happened. Here are two theories. 1) A pre-existing intelligence assembled bits of inanimate matter in such a way that they were able to replicate with a potentiality for change. There is no scientific evidence for this theory. 2) By sheer luck bits of inanimate matter assembled themselves in such a way that they were able to replicate with a potentiality for change. There is no scientific evidence for this theory. - I don't see why belief in one theory without scientific evidence requires faith, but belief in another theory without scientific evidence does not require faith.