This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Naturalism Doesn’t Work

Posted on

Although naturalism might work with purely observable phenomena, it does not work with origins science and evolutionary biology, which are essentially historical sciences. The historicity of evolutionary biology is explained by Ernst Mayr in his article in the July 2000 issue of Scientific American.  Mayr is touted by Scientific American as “one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology.” Mayr explains it this way:

…Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

The book by Dr. Jonathan Wells, entitled Icons of Evolution, shows that this ‘historical narrative,’ that has been and is being presented to our children as the only factually viable theory, is actually based on misrepresentations of the facts. Instead of being driven by the evidence, the “historical narrative” is driven by the Naturalistic

world view that all phenomena result only from the laws of chemistry and physics.  This is applied materialistic philosophy, dressed up as science to protect it from criticism by a competing world view—i.e., that life may be a product of design.

One reason naturalism should not drive a historical science is that historical sciences are necessarily susceptible to subjective accounts. This is because the focus is on past events which can not be tested by direct observation as in the case of physics and chemistry.  When the account is driven by the philosophy of Naturalism rather than by the evidence, the “history” necessarily conforms itself to the philosophy and thereby loses all objectivity and credibility.

Continue Reading on


This entry was posted in Christian Values, Creation Compromises, Evolution, Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Jack Parker

    The Law of Evolution is a product of both deductive and inductive reasoning. The farce of Creationism is a product of blind, illogical faith.

    • Tim shimeall

      The theory of evolution is definitely based on deductive and inductive reasoning. However, as any student of reasoning knows, deduction only produces valid results (I.e., truth, instead of logic) if the deduction is based on valid statements. Evolution has been repeatedly shown, by it’s adherents, to be lacking here: cells came from pools of chemical soup (false, since these don’t lead to formation of closed membranes, or a necessary mix of organelles, etc.), cells come from ocean wave droplets (false, since droplets dissolve back into substrate in which they come), … The base “facts” become a speculative fiction that is easily manipulated, not a valid basis for deduction. (similar speculative scenarios are presented for how complex organisms emerge, how organisms transform into other organisms, etc. )

      The inductive basis for evolution is in even worse shape. Induction is the reasoning that since A is observed, and since a known process is observed whereby one instance leads to another, then from A we can derive all successive instances. But evolution lacks both A and the known process. Instead, it states: assume a first cell and then a transforming process that bypasses all of the cellular defenses against genetic change and produces viable offspring with categorically new characteristics not present in the parent population. (neither of these have ever been observed, either directly, in a modern context, or indirectly in a historical record). Under these assumptions, we can induce that all modern species can emerge from a single parent stock of cells. In other words, if we assume evolution then we conclude evolution. This is an obviously circular reasoning. If one assumes the conclusion, one can obviously derive all manner of false statements.

      Yes, evolution is based on both deduction and induction. No one disputes this. Unfortunately, this logical basis does not imply that macroevolution in fact exists, since the statements of evolutionists reveal a contrafactual basis for their logic.

  • Jeff

    Actually, Jack, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning have little to do with evolution, since the premises of both types of reasoning are speculations. For instance, biologists have long argued that life only comes from life. That premise is backed by innumerable observations and experiments. Evolutionists speculate that life came from non-life, an invalid premise based on all evidence.
    Ernst Mayr noted that evolution is speculation (tentative, conjecture.)
    Why can’t evolutionists argue from fact rather than from derision and ridicule? Your post had 3 derisive words out of 24.
    Question – what evidence would it take to show that evolution is untrue?

  • Jack Parker

    Three lengthy paragraphs of tortured logic to try and refute a simple sentence. Yet you cannot give a single piece of objective evidence for the existence of anything “spiritual” including God. whereas I can give you a contra-contrafactual argument for the Law of Evolution: You exist therefore Evolution must be true.

Proudly built by WPDevelopers