Naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is a fact

At the conclusion of the series of essays on, the author summarizes the viewpoint of Darwinists through the relevant philosophical assumptions.  The gist is that naturalism is seen as metaphysically true; therefore, through the process of elimination, evolution is true.  The question from this perspective cannot be, “Did evolution occur?”  It can only be, “How did it occur?”

The irony here is that evolutionists make naturalism unscientific according to their own criterion of testability. This is because naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that are allowed. They therefore cannot be tested because they are true by definition. The only testing that can be done is between different sub-hypotheses of naturalism. Gradualism can be compared with punctuated equilibrium, drift can be compared with selection, and so forth. But naturalism has been defined as the only scientific option available.

Imagine if the species were designed, as they appear to be. Imagine that the DNA code, the bat’s sonar system, the towering redwood trees, and the other biological wonders were designed. If this were true, it would never be allowed within evolutionary science. How can evolutionists claim their theory is a fact while simultaneously ruling out certain explanations? They can do this by allowing for only scientific explanations to be factual. The world outside of science may be beautiful, awesome, intriguing, enchanting, and so forth, but it is not factual. In a word, science deals with facts while non-science deals with values.

So the basis, the philosophical underpinnings, of their position is untestable, and is, therefore, unscientific by their own criteria. Science, it seems, lacks a definition apart from philosophical naturalism, which is held as a metaphysical truth…a metaphysical “truth,” which is untestable.

In the century and a half since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, science has discovered a plethora of contradictory information. Many predictions of the theory have been falsified, including foundational expectations. The theory has consistently failed and as a consequence it has grown far more complex than anything Darwin ever envisioned. Evolution is not a good scientific theory and in this sense it is comparable to geocentrism. Both theories grew ever more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, adding epicycle upon epicycle.

In stark contrast to these evidential problems, evolutionists believe that their theory is a fact. Evolution is a fact, they say, just as gravity is fact. This remarkable claim is an indicator that there is more to evolution than merely a scientific theory. In light of the scientific evidence, the claim that evolution is a fact may seem to be absurd. But it is not.

The fact of evolution is a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions evolutionists make. Metaphysical assumptions are assumptions that do not derive from science. They are made independent of science. These metaphysical assumptions that evolutionists make would be difficult to defend as necessarily true outside of evolutionary circles, but within evolution their truth is not controversial. All of this means that the scientific problems with evolution are relegated to questions of how evolution occurred. The science cannot bear on questions of whether or not evolution occurred.


Mind and Brain-Part I

The hemispherectomy was a procedure performed mostly in the 1960s and 1970s which was performed to help relieve epilepsy. In this procedure, an entire hemisphere of brain (half of the brain) was removed. While there were often some long-term effects on controlling movement in one side of the body, studies showed that these individuals retained their personalities, cognitive and intellectual abilities. Of course this depends on the age of the patient at the time that the surgery is performed. Apparently, the unaffected hemisphere is able to adapt and take over the functions of the hemisphere that has been removed.

Hemispherectomy Photo

To me, this is one piece of evidence for a possible split between mind and brain (software and hardware if you will). I may have missed something, but I think these facts support and ID perspective better than an evolutionary perspective. To consider the pressures of natural selection to produce this ability, you would have to have a large population of humans or ancestors (with brains) suffering neural insults, and those who were able to maintain enough of their previous functioning to reproduce would pass on their mutations for neuroplasticity to the next generation. Even then, what would be the need for maintaining the same personality, memory abilities, and cognitive functioning? All you really need to do is to be smart enough to avoid getting killed and smart enough to reproduce (it’s not all that difficult really–at least the latter).

So, from a design perspective, if you were designing a highly advanced life form, I think you’d want to build in capacity beyond what might really be needed. You’d also want to design it to keep functioning as much as possible in the case of an injury. If it was important that this life form maintain a sense of self or “personhood” if you will, then I think you’d want them to continue being the same person in the absense of as much hardware as is possible. We certainly have capacities that are far beyond what we need to survive and reproduce. If not, then why are we blogging, enjoying nature, painting, making music, studying evolution, and so on and so forth (all things that do nothing to enhance survival of either the species or the individual)?