At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?

The context of the discussion that started this point, was about you stating that you couldn't believe any scientist who disagreed with the ToE if that scientist also possessed some measure of religious faith.This is of course a patently absurd notion, and I am surprised that you weren't aware of the absurdity of it from the start.If a scientist in the field of biology (or genetics, or anthropology, or other similar field) had determined through their scientific research that the data does not support the conclusion that random mutations can account for the diversity of life on earth, then OF COURSE they would have some measure of believe in some kind of guiding force to the world. What other options are there? If it isn't randomness doing the changes, then something is, right. Can there be any other choices?Now, you can disagree with their conclusions if you wish. But your conclusions for your belief in atheism are derived the same way- by looking at the data, the only difference being that you know less about the subject to draw that conclusion than a trained biologist (Or possibly one might suspect that is NOT how you have come to the conclusion-perhaps your own religious background also plays a part in your conclusion-in which case your findings would be even more suspect). So you are deriving your faith in atheism from studying what little data you know, but you are denying their faith from studying the subject much more extensively than you. You simply choose to ignore them, because their conclusion doesn't fit the one you want.So what if a scientist started out with NO notion about his religious ideas at all, but after studying the subject intensively for many years, realizes that the numbers simply don't add up (as many scientists have concluded), so they begin to develop a sense that there is more to the world than randomness at play here-which of course would lead to a religious belief (of some kind). Now you have just disqualified their expertise precisely because their expertise has shown that it is not randomness.If you don't have the ability to see the absurdity of your argument (which is simply, "I will consider all other conclusions, just so long as they are the same conclusions as mine"), than it is also no surprise that the conclusions you have drawn from your limited knowledge of the subject are not grounded on a very solid bed of logic.Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

I have provided you the exact reason of why the fuck not, but you have missed it.The opposite of random is systematic or planned. The answer is that simple.If it is logically possible for life to exist in a way which doesn't rely on randomness, but which also is not planned, guided or designed, in some way, please explain how that could be.

We also don't have to gloss over the practicality of "determining such a negative" as you say.In one can show that the rate of randomly occurring mutations in all species on the planet are not sufficient enough to provide the changes the ToE proposes given the time frame we have to work with, and the finite number of organisms in which to confer these mutated traits, then we have "determined a negative" as you say.

I have noticed a trend amongst many (most) evolutionists, they always try their best to run away from the word and concept of randomness ( I can see why). Unfortunately the theory doesn't allow you to escape this, because the theory posits only blind, purposeless, genetic accidents which may or may not be selected for.So again, I ask you, if not blind, purposeless accidents, what else can you have which doesn't require a plan?

Now Cavediver, I think you are really attempting to be disingenuous now. I have made the point perfectly clear, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.IF randomness was not a role of the ToE, is there any other possible explanation that can exclude randomness, and also exclude planning?If you want to dodge that question, then stop playing games and just admit you wish to dodge it.Secondly, I feel you have made a logical mistake by trying to equate the ToE with any other scientific theories, in the context of this discussion, for a number of critical reasons:1. No other scientific theories propose randomness as the root of their methodology. As well, other scientific theories don't have as their focus, a system which progresses from simple and unrelated to complex and completely interrelated.2. The quest for understanding evolution has a completely different goal than other theories. With evolution, we are trying to answer the question of why as well as how. If we rule out randomness as being a critical element of the theory, we can't just throw our hands up in the air, and say, well, it just is, just like gravity just is, or the electromagnetic force just is-without needing to account for how it is, and ignoring the giant elephant in the room.Other theories don't ask the question of why. The theory of gravity doesn't attempt to say why it exists, it just says what it does. Likewise with all the other physical laws of nature. We are not asking where they came from, we are just trying to find out what they do. We leave the question of where the cosmos all comes from to the philosophers.So, for evolution we are stuck with two choices, for explaining it. One is randomness, and there is no why. The other is a plan.I have asked you for a third choice (of which there logically can be none) and so you have ignored that point.And Cavediver, I am perfectly fine with having a discussion with you using any tone you like. If you prefer the indignant tone, I can go with that, or if you prefer to just exchange thoughts, I am ok with that too. Just let it be said that I don't begin discussions with anyone with that as my first option-and I did not do so with you. I prefer to let other decide if that's the direction they wish to take.And finally, I won't take any bets, but I have had sex with a lot of woman. In the era of Tiger Woods, I feel it is just best to get out in front of that early, with full disclosure. I am sure Sweden is a lovely place, but I have no desire to move there right now.

That particular organizations religious beliefs are are irrelevant to the validity of other scientists who have religious beliefs but are perfectly capable of drawing scientific conclusions.If you are going to refute these individuals based on their extreme faith, ok, but then you also need to discount anything Richard Dawkins and other ardent atheists say as well, for the exact same reasons.The fact that there may be extreme people at either side of an argument is neither here nor there.cavediver has admitted he was once a fundamentalist Christian, and pro Creationist. Not only does that mean that at some point in his life he was obviously very wrong-so who is to believe him now-but also it makes it likely that his later in life distaste for this religion colors his opinions, as he clearly wants there NOT to be a non-material explanation. So whatever he says we need to discount as well.Perhaps that is why he is unable to understand the extremely simple concept of something either being planned, designed or lead, as opposed to being aimless and random. Its quite a simple distinction-and it can only be one or the other, and yet he can't see that. I say it is because he doesn't want to see it, but if he can't see that distinction because he truly is incapable of it, then that is perhaps even worse.

Yes, in an odd way you are completely correct there, but for the exact opposite reasons you think.It is not surprising that someone who has studied the science of biology extensively, come to the conclusion that it is not possible for random genetic mistakes to create the diversity of life we see, and having realized that randomness can not do it, arrived at the only other conclusion possible-non-randomness.Not the slightest bit surprising at all.What is surprising is that you, who have admitted to not really having thought about it much, claim to know more about the science than them. And yet you still are struggling with this tiny bit of logic. Hohoho Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling