MikeBGene: After life exists, you seem to be saying that both the
intervention of an intelligent agent and natural selection can explain
similar attributes. Your argument then boils down to 'we can't be sure.'
Pim van Meurs : Of course not, science is never 'sure' but the lack of any
evidence supporting an intelligent agent, the vaste amounts of evidence
supporting natural selection as a likely mechanism and the Occam Razor
surely seem to support natural selection. It's clear that NO evidence of an
intelligent agent exists. SO at least that one has been eliminated as far as
science is concerned. Now the question remains: Is natural selection
(one of) the processes?
MikeBGeneYou seem quite certain that it is "clear" there is "NO" evidence an
intelligent agent exists. As a theist, I could not disagree more. Thus, we
can either get into debates about the existence of God or we can simply
agree to disagree.
The existance of a God is not determined by evidence but by faith.
Mike: Thus, it comes down to this. If you don't see any evidence for God's
existence, then of course you're going to rule out intelligent intervention.
It's not what I believe I see. My statement should be seen in the light of scientific enquiry.