Why do people call natural forces 'blind'?
Creationists like to call Evolution a blind process, I guess in a derogatory manner designed to contrast it to their so called intelligent agent. The use of the term is not restricted to origins debates though, it seems whenever people think that scientific laws cannot solely be responsible for a particular phenomena they call said laws ‘blind’.
How does this reflect on our collective perception? To my way of thinking, blind scientific laws are a far more credible proposition than imagining a conscious entity to cause a phenomenon. Do people really place more value on the idea of a homunculus than natural law?
I really don’t want this discussion to revolve around creation vs. evolution, that is just a convenient example. Thanks.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
Creationists don’t like the idea of anything randomly occurring.
To them an unmoderated process lacks a driving vision and therefore must be blind.
They say that Lady Justice is blind. This means that “she” is impartial to everybody and everything. The same goes for natural occurrences, as they cannot choose a side or preference.
blind in the sense of favoritism or choice of victim/subject. without will.
The blind leading the blind then? lol
The clouds rain on us all, good bad and ugly.
”Why do people call natural forces ‘blind’?”
If you can’t figure it out then you should go sit down and take a breather.
@davidbetterman Good advice. I’ll give Fluther a break for a moment till I’m thinking clearly again.
Heck, I’m a Neodarwinist and I think evolution is blind. If a Creationist said that to me, I’d say, “Of course it is.”
Answer this question