Hi X,
<<It's ironic isn't it?>> I don't see the irony, but I do see your logic. The thing is evolution or at least adaptation of the species is an observable and replicable process. This is possible, because the things we are observing have limited existence. Their parameters of definition are limited, the time of observation is also limited. As such we can observe the creatures and their processes from "beginning to end," then do it again. So, we can do this because these things including time have a temporal nature.
There are things that have less of a temporal nature. For example, you say in reference to god or Gods, "I don't care which one(s)." Not caring, implies that there are things you do care about. You have some evidence of caring because it springs from someplace inside yourself. You can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, etc; yet there is evidence that it exists. It is difficult, however, to nail down the parameters of the things you care about. Can you "prove" you care? Can you, for example, precisely and adequately define the limits of your concern for your children? If one of your children becomes at risk you likely would act against the threat, if you are able, to reduce or remove such risks. This act, then would be driven by your concern. So, I might even be able to observe some evidence of your ability to care; and to the extent that you were motivated to act, I am able to take a measurement (although not precise) to give me further evidence.
The point is most believers identify something that springs from inside themselves that confirms the evidence presented to them in the world. If you claim to care about the well being of your children, I am likely to believe it. If I see evidence of you caring for your children, I am likely to believe it. Why? Because I have children and I can identify something that springs from within me that gives evidence to parental caring.
Intelligent people do not consider this to be in conflict with scientific explanations of things. It is apples and oranges really. The logical problem from the other side is, why would people "believe" a scientific explanation of creation and maintenance of the Universe that cannot be observed, replicated scientifically; or confirmed by something that springs from within. It doesn't line up with sound scientific method or qualify for what usually passes as a belief system. |
