The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 21:58 (5229 days ago) @ George Jelliss

xeno wrote: "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. 
> 
> I would phrase it: "An open-minded scientist looks at the evidence for evolution and says Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life." There is no need to begin with an atheistic or theistic assumption.
> -Well, in the context of my paper it was atheist and theist because the fight over evolution is about exactly these two groups; materialists vs. immaterialists. It has nothing to with science, its a philosophical battle. Massimo Pigliucci agrees on this point. --> The argument that "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!" is just circular. Mind is a function of life.-But not to people who aren't materialists.

--
\"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.\"