On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
Requiring evidence for any religious claims that are made is not “opposing religion”. When religious claims can be proven using the scientific method, then opposing religion in science will be unscientific.
Currently the best explanation for evolution does not include anything religious.
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
Requiring evidence for any religious claims that are made is not “opposing religion”. When religious claims can be proven using the scientific method, then opposing religion in science will be unscientific.
Currently the best explanation for evolution does not include anything religious.
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.