The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

Wrong. The very opposite is true. Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction. It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

Creationist ID proves moral relativism.

 

[bripat9643]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You claim there are supernatural processes affecting the world? Can you demonstrate that claim?

 

[bripat9643]

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

Wrong. The very opposite is true. Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction. It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist. That isn't how logic works. If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.

 

[natstew]

All these arguments can be argued all the way back to the "Big Bang", there they bump hard into the Big

?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You claim there are supernatural processes affecting the world? Can you demonstrate that claim?

I can tell you one thing: it's a very difficult thing to illustrate while holding to an evolutionary methodological naturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

Wrong. The very opposite is true. Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction. It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

If that's what you're getting out of my excerpt then you're not getting what is actually being expounded at all. Of course that would be illogical, but that argument is not to be found anywhere near the vicinity of that excerpt or, for that matter, anywhere near the vicinity of the article. I have never argued such a stupid thing in my entire life.

Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist. That isn't how logic works. If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.

The existence of God is not immediately relevant to the central issue: the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Creationist ID proves moral relativism.

Of course it does . . . not.

 

[mamooth]

So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You claim there are supernatural processes affecting the world? Can you demonstrate that claim?

Providential and miraculous interventions are not demonstrable.

You cant put God in a test tube. What He does He does when and where He wants, and nothing repeats reliably, because it is the product of His will not some mechanism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

Wrong. The very opposite is true. Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction. It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist. That isn't how logic works. If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.

The proof lies outside of science, and that is what you choose to ignore.

No one has to give scientific proof at all for it to be proven.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?

Are you sober?

 

[orogenicman]

Wrong. The very opposite is true. Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction. It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

God of the gaps fallacy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

God of the gaps fallacy.

There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

In the meantime, bripat9643's allegation regarding my supposed logical error is still false. Indeed, his allegation is a non sequitur, just as JimBowie's follow up is.

Look here, guys. The materialist merely assumes that all of natural history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. That's his metaphysical presupposition for science, and it is no more subject to scientific falsification than is my metaphysical presupposition for science.

That is an incontrovertible fact, a fact that flies right over the head of the atheist, not the stuff of any logical error.

And the materialist is stuck with abiogenesis and evolution to explain the origin of life and its speciation.

An unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect of an evolutionary kind, from the cosmological to the astronomical to the chemical to the biological . . . or a history of creative events and extinctions, i.e., thereafter subject to the dictates of the laws of nature? The evidence would in fact look the same despite the ill-considered and unimaginative claims of the materialist.

Jim, evolution is an unwarranted compromise. It's not in scripture. Certainly, abiogenesis is a fantasy, and Darwinism cannot as satisfactorily account for the fossil record as creationism. Further, the allegedly best supports for the feverish and mathematically improbable claims of evolution, vestigial organs and endogenous retro viruses, the premature and underlying assumptions thereof, are unraveling in the face of recent discoveries.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Hogwash.

 

[orogenicman]

Why is that irrational? Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.

God of the gaps fallacy.

There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.

 

[mamooth]

So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?

Are you sober?

I'll take that as a "no", as will most other people. Your only goal here was to justify hating atheists, but you weren't honest enough to admit it. That dishonesty destroys all your claims of the moral superiority of your system. Essentially, your bad behavior disproves your own point more thoroughly than any of us could have.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God of the gaps fallacy.

There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.

So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?

 

[orogenicman]

There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been. Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.

So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".