What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What's non-blind faith?

Exactly. All faith is blind. Such is the nature of faith. I pointed this out to KYJelly, but wasn't surprised when he failed to grasp it.

Originally posted by howardgee
Exactly. All faith is blind. Such is the nature of faith. I pointed this out to KYJelly, but wasn't surprised when he failed to grasp it.

I'm not so sure about all faith being blind.
I think you have to distinguish between the types of faiths that people hold.

Here's an excerpt from a forum held in Australia recently about the Nature of belief (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm🙄. The participants were a scientist, a science writer and a theologian.

This was the response of the theologian, Dr. David Millikan, to the question, is there anything you believe that you cannot prove? It (and his subsequent discussion which is well worth reading or listening to) demonstrated a very clear and rational level of belief, and not just a blind faith.

David Millikan: ... I would need to know what you mean by a proof. If you mean a sort of demonstration that is incontrovertible that had the type of inevitability that cannot be denied, then I believe a number of things like that. But those things tend to be trivial; they tend to be things that have to do with analytical statements you know. Like mathematics and the like. But the important things like, 'Does my wife love me?' - I believe that to be true, but I can't give a proof that is one of those proofs that exhausts any possibility of doubt. And I guess this is the nature of life itself. What I'm saying is, I think, 'There's a lot of things I cannot prove in that sense', but if you're asking me, 'Can I provide some sort of reason for the things I believe such that it gives some integrity to what I believe', then yes.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm not so sure about all faith being blind.
I think you have to distinguish between the types of faiths that people hold.

Here's an excerpt from a forum held in Australia recently about the Nature of belief (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm🙄. The participants were a scientist, a science writer and a theologian.

This wa ...[text shortened]... things I believe such that it gives some integrity to what I believe', then yes.[/i]

Well of course he would argue this. His next step is to say; "I cannot prove beyond any doubt that my wife loves me, it is the same thing with God's existence."
However, inductive reasoning, whilst differing from deductive reasoning, still has a validity. With God, there is no reasoning whatsoever. No evidence. No proof. Just blind, stupid, spoon-fed faith.

Originally posted by howardgee
Well of course he would argue this. His next step is to say; "I cannot prove beyond any doubt that my wife loves me, it is the same thing with God's existence."
However, inductive reasoning, whilst differing from deductive reasoning, still has a validity. With God, there is no reasoning whatsoever. No evidence. No proof. Just blind, stupid, spoon-fed faith.

If you saw a painting would you for a moment doubt that the painter exists?

Originally posted by howardgee
Well of course he would argue this. His next step is to say; "I cannot prove beyond any doubt that my wife loves me, it is the same thing with God's existence."
However, inductive reasoning, whilst differing from deductive reasoning, still has a validity. With God, there is no reasoning whatsoever. No evidence. No proof. Just blind, stupid, spoon-fed faith.

That's true, but then we're all guilty of justifying our beliefs and world views to suit ourselves. I think you're mistaking one type of religious belief with all of them - of course, as an atheist of what people seem to call here the 'strong' type, I could be wrong.

Here's a couple more quotes from David Millikan, which although as you would expect from a religious person are a little obtuse, do strike me as more thoughtful than you seem to allow for a follower of 'faith'.

I'm happy to explain why I believe something like [believing in God] ... I would say, that if I can't justify or give reasons for the things I believe, then I have no right to believe. And this is in the sense this dilemma. Reason and faith are bound together and yet both of them are sort of imperialistic and both wish to consume the other. But faith without reason ends up as superstition and vacuous and reason without faith becomes conformist, dull and uninteresting

... you must submit all of your beliefs to the scrutiny of reason. I believe that faith in a sense is reason testing itself. That we as rational beings survey the cosmos for things, possible things that we admire, respect, or perhaps might want to believe in. And we move towards these objects and our rational processes are working flat out, we're saying does this make sense? Is there a type of interior coherency about these beliefs? Do they contradict each other? That's the first test. Does it make sense in terms of the way it applies to me as a person? There's a whole series of tests you bring to bear and as you start to zero in and your reason begins to, in a sense, heighten your confidence that the object of your observation is a worthy object for you, then you get into this dance between faith and reason.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you saw a painting would you for a moment doubt that the painter exists?

Not this again.
ID is dead, long live ID.

This is flawed reasoning and either you know it, or you're an idiot refusing to accept it.
Either way, get your hand off it ...

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you saw a painting would you for a moment doubt that the painter exists?

Yes I would.
1. Do I know for sure that is a painting?
2. If it is older than 100 years the painter is almost cirtainly dead (does not exist)
3. Mathematics and nature produce some very beautifull and intricate patterns which may mistaken for paintings but are not.
4. I may not realise that although the painter exists, the painter is an ape or elephant or even a robot.
5. The biggest indication that a painting was painted by a human is the content (human oriented), the framing etc and the price tag. But none of this is indicative of what you probably wish to imply by your question which is that all complex things imply a maker.
The biggest flaw of ID is the logical failure of the claim that
Complexity implies a maker therefore the universe is not driven by chance.
The flaw is that chance is complex and can result in further complexity and even if complexity does require a 'designer' this is not evidence of the abscence of chance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I would.
1. Do I know for sure that is a painting?
2. If it is older than 100 years the painter is almost cirtainly dead (does not exist)
3. Mathematics and nature produce some very beautifull and intricate patterns which may mistaken for paintings but are not.
4. I may not realise that although the painter exists, the painter is an ape or elepha ...[text shortened]... d even if complexity does require a 'designer' this is not evidence of the abscence of chance.

You are missing the point. If you see a painting, say for example, 'Mona Lisa', would you say that an intelligent hand did the painting, or random chance is responsible?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are missing the point. If you see a painting, say for example, 'Mona Lisa', would you say that an intelligent hand did the painting, or random chance is responsible?

It would depend on whether you'd seen a painting before. Was it like similar objects that you'd seen in the past? Could you establish these as being painted?
But the point is irrelevant.
Something can exhibit the appearance of design without being designed.
There are plenty of examples of objects in nature that exhibit the appearance of design that have not been designed.

Originally posted by amannion
It would depend on whether you'd seen a painting before. Was it like similar objects that you'd seen in the past? Could you establish these as being painted?
But the point is irrelevant.
Something can exhibit the appearance of design without being designed.
There are plenty of examples of objects in nature that exhibit the appearance of design that have not been designed.

You are just evading the issue.

Something can exhibit the appearance of design without being designed.
There are plenty of examples of objects in nature that exhibit the appearance of design that have not been designed.

Which objects would these be? How do you know that they have not been designed?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are missing the point. If you see a painting, say for example, 'Mona Lisa', would you say that an intelligent hand did the painting, or random chance is responsible?

If I see Mona Lisa then I know that it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Was he inteligent? Yes. Does he exist? No. Does it provide evidence that all artists are intelligent? No. Would a photograph, requiring no intelligent input, produce a similar result? Yes. Was random chance responsible for Mona Lisa? Yes.

Which objects would these be? How do you know that they have not been designed?
The mandel bro set is a complex, beatifully object resulting from a very simple formula. Conways Game of life is another very complex example of a mathematical result of a very simple formula. The only input is the very simple formula. Was the formula "designed"? Only if the universe of which the formula is a part was designed.
Your logic seems to be that "All things are designed therefore all things are designed".
It is an undisputable fact that "Random chance" produces complex patterns.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I see Mona Lisa then I know that it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Was he inteligent? Yes. Does he exist? No. Does it provide evidence that all artists are intelligent? No. Would a photograph, requiring no intelligent input, produce a similar result? Yes. Was random chance responsible for Mona Lisa? Yes.

Which objects would these be? How do yo are designed".
It is an undisputable fact that "Random chance" produces complex patterns.

Was random chance responsible for Mona Lisa? Yes.

So I gather your brain is also a product of random chance then?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] Was random chance responsible for Mona Lisa? Yes.

So I gather your brain is also a product of random chance then?[/b]

Yes, combined with the other factors required for evolution:
- Self replicating Structures
- Inheritable features
- Limited resources required for the structures to replicate
- Time (lots of)

Rendom (chance) replication errors are an essential part of the ongoing process that has had as some of its results, the Mona Lisa, My brain and a spider's web.

I'm getting a certain sence of deja-vu here, I really must put those requirements in a file somewhere to drag out each time this same question is asked..

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So I gather your brain is also a product of random chance then?

Yes. In combination with the laws of physics. Keeping in mind that the complex patterns being woven by random chance have been building for the billions of years since the big bang.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are just evading the issue.

[b]Something can exhibit the appearance of design without being designed.
There are plenty of examples of objects in nature that exhibit the appearance of design that have not been designed.

Which objects would these be? How do you know that they have not been designed?[/b]

Inductive reasoning:

Artist 1 has been seen creating painting i.
Artist 2 has been seen creating painting ii.
Artist 3 has been seen creating painting iii.

Here is painting iv. It has been painted by an artist.

Compare and contrast to the universe and intelligent design.
Universe 1 has been seen created by God i.
Oh no wait, it hasn't. We have no evidence of any God creating anything. Thus your argument is fallacious and we cannot apply inductive reasoning to the creation of the universe.