ID, a \"Backwards\" Philosophy? (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 22:40 (5562 days ago) @ David Turell

Especially when the conclusion we reach is still ultimately debatable? You said yourself that your conviction is a leap of faith. Doesn't that mean that you've already reached a conclusion and are now justifying it?
> 
> Yes the conclusion is not proveable, which leads to the leap of faith. Remember I started out in your agnostic position, and by the time I had done my cosmological research, I said to myself, there has got to be something. It was only then that I began to look at Darwin, in which at first I had total belief, and I was amazed at the huge holes in his theory. I had simply accepted the theory beforehand without any critical reading or thought. It was a great conjecture for the knowledge in 1859, but the subsequent work casts huge doubts if you step back and take an honest neutral look. My leap came AFTER all of the reading and thinking, just the opposite timing proposed in your final sentence. I justified a conclusion a long time ago and now I am defending it in this website, to add to the discussion here. I made my mind up in 1990 after starting to read in about 1960. But what I believe doesn't sound like your average religion. - Amen to that. - Sorry. Had to...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"