we aren’t gods, so nothing we think can be taken as absolute truth. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t generalize and say that you’re right when all of the evidence points your way.

“When talking about things that happened billions of years ago there really is just no knowing.”

There’s also no knowing what happened 5 minutes ago by your standards, since memories could be flawed. Yet you still say with certainty that you ate breakfast this morning.

“The reason to favor science over religion is because religion so desperately wants to tell you how to live your life based off of these explanations.”

Wrong. I’m ok with people telling me how to live my life as long as their reasoning makes sense. Religion just doesn’t make sense. It requires that I suppose a god exists without any evidence to back it up.

Shucks, sometimes I look at the complexity and think God is a likely explanation. Sometimes I look at the complexity and think Evolution is a likely explanation. Other times I look at the simplicity and think God is a likely explanation while sometimes I think evolution is a likely explanation.\

Mostly I just think that all of our explanation have the indelible mark of humanity and in this regard can’t be taken as the absolute truth.

When talking about things that happened billions of years ago there really is just no knowing. Explanations of science and religion seems equally compelling when talking about never ever land. The reason to favor science over religion is because religion so desperately wants to tell you how to live your life based off of these explanations. Recently though, certain areas of science have began sullying science’s reputation of being neutral on moral arguments.

*cough* global warming *cough*

Millions upon millions of random shit has to go right in order for one cell to do a basic function and somehow this is more satisfying then god running the show.

If you ask me, neither explanation is that satisfying.

“Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability. J. Anderson Thomson, from his perspective as an evolutionary psychiatrist, points me to an additional reason, the psychological bias that we all have towards personifying inanimate objects as agents. As Thomson says, we are more inclined to mistake a shadow for a burglar than a burglar for a shadow. A false positive might be a waste of time. A false negative could be fatal. In a letter to me, he suggested that, in our ancestral past, our greatest challenge in our environment came from each other. ‘The legacy of that is the default assumption, often fear, of human intention. We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than human causation.’ We naturally generalized that to divine intention.” mmh, he unfortunately didn’t write anything about tree-sex in this passage, though….

And, regardless, the fact that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize molecules has no bearing on whether or not God exists.

As I have already stated, the video depicts the single molecules as to behave somewhat “intentionally”. That’s why Steve alluded to “God”.