Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 12:50 (5672 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I described two theories about the origin of life: 1) A pre-existing intelligence assembled bits of inanimate matter. 2) By sheer luck bits of inanimate matter assembled themselves. I then said there was no scientific evidence for either theory. - George: I say 2) does have scientific evidence, namely that there was a stage without life and a stage with life, and therefore we may deduce, without making further assumptions, that a transition took place from one to the other. - Both hypotheses are based on precisely the same fact (stage without life...stage with life) and precisely the same deduction (transition from one to the other, either by design or by chance). We know that the transition took place, but we don't know how. So what scientific evidence are you referring to? - George: The exact details of the process [i.e. 2] are as yet unknown. - Precisely. Unknown details do not constitute scientific evidence. - George: It is unnecessary to postulate entirely extraneous interference by fairies or other beings in the process. - So long as we believe in sheer luck (the natural laws only come into play once sheer luck has done the initial assembling), of course it is unnecessary to postulate any other theory. But that's not science. That's faith. - I'm not postulating fairies. I'm not postulating anything. I'm saying Hypothesis 2) is based on faith and not on science ... just like Hypothesis 1). It's not meant as a criticism, though. I see nothing wrong at all with faith, so long as it doesn't lead to the sort of bigotry and oppression that you've pointed out in your extremely disturbing post on Islam.