When Faith and Science Clash

[TaraJo]

If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:

a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design

Or you could do a little intelligent, scientific research and believe what the research leads you to believe.

If I wanted to find out the history on said sign, I could look up its construction, when it was constructed, why it was constructed, who constructed it, what it was made out of, how long it took to make and how much it costed the city to erect the sign.

And the flaw with doing the exact same research on the creation of the universe is that every time I do research and learn something new, I realize how little any supernatural mumbo-jumbo is needed.

What's even more interesting, the only scientists who seem to find information that proves intelligent design are scientists who set out to find information for intelligent design. When you have scientists who are just looking for the truth, as in cold, hard, scientific facts whether those facts are supported by religion or not, none of them ever seem to be led to believe in intelligent design; thus is the power of confirmation bias.

[IATIA]

Actually Reasonable_Jeff, it is you that is making a claim of 'truth'. As an atheist, the only (indisputable) claim I make is that I reject your unproven 'truth'.

[LastPoet]

Why do I feel this is all "shit-and-run" tactics?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

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.

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."

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.

[FallentoReason]

I was actually going to bring up this other thing Jeff that relates more directly to your very valid point you make. I forgot what it's called, but I managed to find an old thread I started on the topic.

The first paragraph (and the explanation hidden) is basically what you're talking about and it's something that Darwin saw as a problem. The rest of my post deals with where we can possibly go from that problem.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12414.html

Feel free to quote any bits you like and post them in this thread. I think necro posting is frowned upon around these areas...

[LastPoet]

Oh man, its your show Tobie, bash him out, I'm too lazy to answer that old ignorant rethoric.

[Strongbad]

Cool intelligent design story, bro.

How about this one? You walk into your office and see a bunch of paper clips on your desk that could have been randomly scattered. What do you make of this?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Cool intelligent design story, bro.

How about this one? You walk into your office and see a bunch of paper clips on your desk that could have been randomly scattered. What do you make of this?

LOL! That's pretty good actually =D

Touché

---

I was actually going to bring up this other thing Jeff that relates more directly to your very valid point you make. I forgot what it's called, but I managed to find an old thread I started on the topic.

The first paragraph (and the explanation hidden) is basically what you're talking about and it's something that Darwin saw as a problem. The rest of my post deals with where we can possibly go from that problem.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12414.html

Feel free to quote any bits you like and post them in this thread. I think necro posting is frowned upon around these areas...

I'll give it a read when I get a chance later today. From a quick glance I can see that you've articulated it far better than I have.

Thank you for engaging the discussion instead of dismissing it as stupid.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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.

What makes you think life is so incredible? Perhaps if things were a little different, the universe would have produced something vastly more incredible than life as we know it?

Given that the vast majority of the universe is made up of empty space, gas, black holes, etc. it doesn't seem that the life was intentional at all. There's no point to making such a vast universe completely hostile to life. The universe could be said to be more finely tuned to produce black holes than life.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Looking forward to seeing that, it would (by the way) be more incredible if the universe was not hospitable to us (specifically) and yet we existed nevertheless. For example, suppose carbon was unstable, incapable of forming complex bonds with any sort of regularity, and/or other elements or forces regularly annihilated it under any and all circumstances. Then.....we'd have something incredible to explain.

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

Because the evidence available is extremely committed to evolution. Evolution, just so we're clear -is- a fact, the theory is how we attempt to explain that fact. There is the observation (the fact), and then there is the theory. Evolution, and Evolution by -insert theory here-. Even ID would rely on the fact of evolution (and most likely it's attendant theories). You might (for example) be arguing against abiogensis (not evolution)- though you would propose it nevertheless by invoking creation by a deity who is not a living, biological entity. If it did not rely on both the fact and theories of evolution, you would be arguing fundamental creationism (and ID in the context of fundamental creationism is superflous). All of this, by the way, without having any of what you laid claim to above (unless we're all in the company of a fucking genius who's about to rewrite the books with their next post).