Belief (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2011, 12:35 (5067 days ago) @ xeno6696

I drafted this post before I went off for my ten-hour nap, but I think it has a part to play in the discussion that took place during my somnolent absence. I will, however, comment on some of the later posts*** in the hope (ever optimistic!) of clarifying the argument.
 
MATT: The problem here is that in all of the objects you describe [radio, car, computer etc.], we KNOW they had a creator. With life, you simply don't have access to that information. So believing that life was created by an intelligent designer is an act of faith, however you want to interpret the evidence. The ONLY thing you can say is that life is more complex than man's inventions. (By and large.)-You seem to have forgotten the subject of this thread, and your own comment that led to our latest exchanges: "It is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence." Of course believing in intelligent design is an act of faith, just as believing in the chance origin of life and believing in the unproven aspects of the theory of evolution are an act of faith. That is the very nature of belief as opposed to knowledge. The question raised by your statement, however, is what constitutes "positive evidence", and who decides the criteria? Hence Tony's "eye of the beholder". Why is your evaluation more valid than, for instance, David's?-MATT: This observation [that life is more complex than man's inventions] itself is not evidence, it's an observation based on evidence. This distinction is crucial!-Is it? In the worlds of science, law and common sense, if a number of people observe the same phenomenon, and no-one contradicts them, it will generally be regarded as evidence. Darwin's whole theory was based on his observations (e.g. structural similarities, from which he inferred common ancestry; variations that bestowed advantages in the battle for survival, from which he inferred the process of natural selection). All theories are inferences based on subjective interpretation of observations/evidence.
 
MATT: [...] as I've said repeatedly, to me only knowledge counts.-Are you now arguing that any belief is "intrinsically unreasonable" because it is not knowledge?-MATT (on the theory of evolution): Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, it's all we have. So I accept it.-How can you "accept" it if only knowledge counts? What is the difference between your acceptance of it and David's acceptance of the theory of design because nothing else makes sense to him? This is not a matter of different epistemology. You have each considered the scientific background (observations/evidence) and made your subjective inferences (see Tony's excellent post on the subject).
 
*** I never saw the post you accidentally deleted, but I presume it's the one David has reproduced and answered on 8 January at 02.01.