# Evolution Question



## TheocraticMonarchist (Apr 14, 2009)

How would you guys handle this?

CA601: Evolution and naturalism


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2009)




----------



## Skyler (Apr 14, 2009)

> Science does not include anything that leaves no evidence that might be tested. Hypotheses that can be asserted but never supported are not part of science. However, these untestable phenomena are only removed from scientific consideration; they are not ruled out from life entirely. People are free to accept or reject them as they please, and science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject.



This is your best answer to the problem. Macroevolution is an untestable hypothesis that can be asserted but never supported--it takes too long to occur! So, it must be removed from scientific consideration.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Apr 14, 2009)

What if he is a theistic evolutionist?


----------



## Zenas (Apr 14, 2009)

*Rebuttal of Response #1:* Nature is the only objective standard we have because of the adoption of Naturalism. Naturalism assumes from the outset that all must be proven by physical, natural means. The only things that may be proven by physical, natural means are those things that are physical and natural. Ergo, the only objective standard under the Naturalistic worldview is determined by assuming the conclusion, a logical fallacy. 
*
Rebuttal of Response #2:* Evolution does rule out the possibility of divine influence because divine influence is a supernatural occurrence. If Response #1 is true, and in evolution it is assumed as true, then all supernatural explanations are rejected at a presuppositional level because the only acceptable evidence under Naturalism is natural, not supernatural. 

*Rebuttal of Response #3:* Evolution seeks to explain our origins by naturalistic means, effectively ruling out any possibility of supernatural causes. Meteorology, farming, printing, law, etc. do not seek to explain our origins. 

Moreover, we would not have to throw out those areas if we discard naturalism because discarding naturalism is merely denouncing the assertion that physical processes are the only way to explain something. Under a supernatural explanation of what we understand, we recognize that natural explanations are one of two ways we understand things to occur. 

Even more so, Law, based on our understanding of morality, is traditionally rooted in supernatural presuppositions. The author is apparently not familiar with the English or American legal systems at all. Law's roots emphatically reject naturalism, and so do most laws today. 

*Rebuttal of Response #4:* That spirituality is irrational. If all we can prove is physical and natural, there is no reason to assume the supernatural which cannot be proven under the needlessly strict and circularly illogical demands of Naturalism.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Apr 14, 2009)

Is it possible for someone to neither presuppose the existence of or non-existence of God? I believe many evolutionists take this stance. The problem with this is that it seems to give the evolutionist “wiggle room.” You know, the creationist may be right; there might actually be a God who created, through evolution. All we can know is that evolution happened. 

I’m not quite sure how to handle this argument.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 14, 2009)

According to Romans 1 it is impossible to NOT presuppose the non existence of God.



> 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.


----------



## steven-nemes (Apr 14, 2009)

I wouldn't even agree with the creationist's claim; who cares about their response to it?


----------



## August (Apr 15, 2009)

Talkorigins is not noted for their dispassionate promotion of science, rather more for skewing and misstating things so that science appears to support atheism.

As for answering some of the points in there, here goes:



> The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have.



Here is one example that clearly shows their presupposition. I guess on one level it is true in that every person observes the same data, however, what is implied here is that the data, according to methodological naturalism, has to be ascribed to natural causes alone. As Christians we do not disagree as far as secondary causes go, but then the following qualifier, nature as "the only objective standard", shows that they consider nature to be the primary cause. That is a serious leap of faith, because for that be true, the observable universe (nature) would have had to cause itself.



> Hypotheses that can be asserted but never supported are not part of science.



Who or what decides what support constitutes? Is quantum physics science or not? Cosmology? archaeology? The stock answer here is that anything that can be subjected to the scientific method and methodological naturalism is scientific. That raises more questions than answers though. Basically any human undertaking can be described using the scientific method (Christian Skepticism - a reasonable faith...: I'm a Golfologist. Not only that, both of those assumptions are philosophical in nature, and cannot be proven by their own assumptions, i.e. prove the scientific method by using the scientific method, or show how methodological naturalism has been "reliably observed" in nature.

#3 is a blind assertion that does not distinguish between primary and secondary causes. It can only be stated that way if naturalism is dictated a-priori. It is also a straw-man argument brought up many times by atheists, as it assumes that Christians believe all things are supernaturally caused. It exhibits no knowledge of the regularity of natural laws that God instituted from creation forward. They may then argue that God serves no purpose in describing these things, but that fails to account for those aspects they hold by faith, such as the reliability of their observations, the expectation of regularity in nature, the reason that the universe behaves in a regulated and consistent fashion etc.



> Intelligent design implies philosophical naturalism.


 Pot calling kettle? 

I hope that helps. There is plenty more to repsond to there, but those were the main points I would address.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 15, 2009)

I think the simplest response would be the one I mentioned earlier--macroevolution doesn't stand up to the criticisms applied to divine intervention. By their own reasoning, then, we should reject it as unscientific.


----------

