Human evolution: we are entirely improbable (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, January 18, 2021, 15:15 (1405 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fallacy in your retort is the overwhelming evidence of design, needing a designer.

dhw: The fallacy in your retort is that an unknown, eternal, conscious, immaterial mind without any source gives rise to just as many unanswerable questions as the theory that chance assembled the bits and pieces that made up the first living cells. Belief in either demands a huge leap of faith (which you have always acknowledged). You and Dawkins are prepared to leap in your different directions, and of course you have a perfect right to do so. But you should not kid yourselves or us that your respective faiths are supported by science.

DAVID: Dawkins and I see the same scientific facts, but he and I view the design in nature differently. He sees design by magic and I see a designing mind at work and you say on your fence.

dhw: You are simply repeating what I have said. Both of you have blind, unscientific faith in your own interpretation of the facts. Faith is not science. In the next exchange (under “RNA can’t work”) you have actually echoed Dawkins’ vocabulary:

DAVID: The way life evolved won't ever be found by humans is my point. Hunter and I have made the same comments many times.

dhw: […] after 13 years of discussions, it seems that even you occasionally acknowledge that all paths lead to agnosticism!

DAVID: No, I think the evidence brings belief, and I am an example of an agnostic who was convinced.

dhw: If you believe the way life evolved won’t ever be found by humans, you will never find it, so your belief that you have found it can only mean….but no, I’ve met you. And you are definitely human.

DAVID: But I can hope

dhw: Yes, you and Dawkins both hope that your diametrically opposite interpretations of the scientific facts will prove to be right, even though you yourself actually acknowledge that we shall never know! My point is that neither of you can claim that your blind faith is based on science.

I'll stick with my comment above: I think the evidence brings belief, and I am an example of an agnostic who was convinced. And there are tons of evidence.