08-30-2015, 12:34 AM
(08-30-2015, 12:10 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And then there are those that believe in science (which i do as well), believe in logic and statistics; yet turn around with numbers that support a statistical improbability, and claim it's more probable.
Purely speculative point here so feel free to ignore it as it has no real merit as of yet...but it would be interesting to see non-believers reactions if the scientific community at large were to come out and say, "you know what, an un-quantifiable god aside, the numbers simply don't add up to natural selection. 'Something or someone' has caused this". I'm pretty sure my reaction would be, "hmm. not surprising".
Addressing your second sentence, the numbers, and evidence do add up to natural selection. In fact, that is not even questioned anymore. The organisms best adapted to their environment are the ones who survive to reproductive age to pass on their genes...and thus traits...to the next generation.
As far as your first sentence, what statistical improbability are you referring to? I am assuming the formation of the universe. If so, even a statistical improbability doesn't eliminate an option, which seems to be what you are implying. And an event with even a small probability, and supporting evidence is still thousands of times more likely than an explanation with zero evidence, like "god did it". So yes, the scientific explanation is still more probable than the religious one.
