When Faith and Science Clash

[Tobie]

The logic that applies to an obviously man made grouping of rocks (the creation of which is very probably documented) does not apply to the universe.

Why? I can (when I get home) provide information that seems pretty clear to indicate intelligent design on the part of our universe. The fine tuning of the initial conditions of our universe to support life is simply incredible.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a group of rocks spelling "Welcome to Orlando" were put there by people to mark the entrance to Orlando - it is pretty unlikely that rocks would randomly spell it out (though not impossible - there's the old adage in quantum physics that "Everything that can happen, does happen") and what other purpose would spelling "Welcome to Orlando" have? With the universe it is different, because there is no obvious purpose for it's existence (if there even is one at all) and no obvious method of how it came to be in it's current state. Scientists searched for this method, and came up with the current theories (big bang, supernovae etc.) and in doing so, have come up with no evidence of intelligent design (and don't try and palm that fact off by saying that scientists would just ignore it because they are all atheists - you probably very well know that most of the physicists before the last 100 years were christian). Now given that there is no evidence for intelligent design, and no discernible purpose for intelligent design, will you be willing to accept that the same logic can't be applied?

Most atheists (the ones on here at least) won't claim explicitly that the universe is as it is due to unguided processes, just that this explanation is the best one science has.

The ones I've encountered are extremely commited to evolution. I've often seen/heard it referred to as "the fact of evolution."

That's because evolution is pretty much confirmed to occur. We may not be completely certain of everything about it, but it does happen.

What you've done here is create a strawman for atheism as a whole.

What part is the stawman? The rocks? Or is it evolution? I agree that I am calling into the implications of evolution. If you do not adhere to evolution this line of thought is void.

The strawman is you saying that atheism is, at it's core, "a deep faith in one's own cognitive abilities and their ability in determining truth." Atheism is no such thing. It's simply not having faith in the ages-long build-up of various extraordinary claims that is modern religion.

Face it, intelligent design has many problems with it, and I doubt anyone will ever be able to iron them out.[/quote]