Naturalism is a Untestable Metaphysical Assumption


(John Heininger) #1

I was expelled from a catholic school for “irreligious” and attitudes and behaviour. And over the next 20+ years I remember having only one single fleeting thought about God and Jesus. Over the years I have read and absorbed the publications and statements of leading atheists, evolutionists and Skeptics including Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins (I have all of Dawkins books), Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, P.J. Myers and others. And still get subscription posts from leading atheist, Humanist, Darwinian and Skeptic organizations to this very day. .Along with leading science mags. So, I know exactly what science, atheism and evolutionary theory is all about, including theistic evolution. I have read Francis Collins material and understand the well meaning intentions of biologos in their quest to integrate evolution with the Biblical worldview and the Gospel, as the means to rescue these impacted by the godless naturalism/materialism of mainstream Scientism.

.
However, I now believe none of it! I have progressively discovered that both atheism and philosophical naturalism/materialism were kings with no clothes: Having their feet planted firmly in mid air . All operate on the unproven “blind faith” METAPHYSICAL religious belief that godless naturalism is “true”: The unproven “blind faith” metaphysical assumption that ALL REALITY is solely the result of natural processes and godless causes alone. In the belief science is the only real source of knowledge and truth. In reality mainstream science is still an ocean removed from ever empirically substantiating the religious claims and “absolutes” of godless naturalism. As rightly pointed out by the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, this godless Naturalism is nothing but a "metaphysical religious belief founded on beliefs and assumptions “above” and “beyond” the limits of science and physics. None of which can be empirically tested or verified by the Empirical & Scientific Method: Because the scientific method has no role in relation to historical events in the unobserved and unrepeatable distant past. And plays no role in empirically testing and verifying deep-time dating assumptions. As there is no scientific instrument known to science that “directly” measures the age of anything. Meaning, the entire deep-time dating game is founded on assumptions, as New Scientist itself has pointed out. . in an article titled “The Dating Game”. Indeed, I have documented at least 22 unverifiable assumptions involved in uniformitarianism and the “dating Game”: None of which can be tested and empirically verified by the scientific method. So, deep-time has never been an issue with me. Nor has evolutionary theory ever been on the radar. Simply because as someone involved in Industrial Systems Design and IT I know that the breathtaking complexity of Computer and biological coding is well beyond an undirected biological evolutionary process that has no “overall perspective” or “predictive” power. A process that wouldn’t have the foggiest notion of where anything, and everything, was evolving to, or even why. .

Meaning, there is no possible way of ever empirically verifying that unobserved distant past events happen one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at all. There is no verifiable scientific answer for the origin of the universe, cosmic fine tuning, or the ultimate nature of Quantum reality. Nor is there any verifiable scientific answer for the origin of life, the DNA double helix, or the breathtaking complexity of genetic coding. Nor is there any scientific answer for the origin of consciousness, conscience, or anything else in existence.

No one in all of human history has ever observed any lifeform evolve into a lifeform of a different kind Indeed, the most repeated experiment and observation non planet earth is that while life forms within a group has the pre-existing “inherent” capability to widely vary and adapt in self preservation, every horticulturist, breeder and biologist who has ever lived (including Darwin himself) knows that these is cross breeding boundaries and reproductive limits for every form of life, without exception. This reality alone spells the end of the supposed "evolutionary continuum. In short, Bacteria in, bacteria out - end of story.

The Nobel Committee does not regard evolutionary “historical theories” about the unobserved distant past as “prize-worthy” science. Nor do I! Thus I do not regard evolutionary theory as a scientific “fact”. And see nothing to cause me to question the literal Biblical revelational account of creation as stated in Genesis. Nor question the relatively recent creation of the earth and universe.


This is very new to me and i am struggling to let go of old thoughts
(Roger A. Sawtelle) #2

@johnheininger

Much what you say is correct. Science is built on faith and facts. However Christianity is also built on faith and facts.

The problem with your argument against Science is that Christianity is the faith that science is based on. When you argue against the validity of Science, you argue against the validity of Christianity.

When people argue against the validity of Christianity they argue against the validity of Science. It is Jesus Christ the Logos Who is the Foundation of both, so when you affirm the truth of Jesus Christ the Logos you affirm the validity of Science, and when you deny the validity of Jesus Christ the Logos, you deny the validity of Science.


(Henry Stoddard) #3

@johnheininger,

I see that you are not a naturalist. I do not feel evolutionary creation is evil; I just do not know if I agree with it. I must say that I agree with Dr. Billy Graham that God could have used any method to create life in this world and possibly on others. I do not accept Bishop Ussher’s dating. I believe the universe has been here millions of years, but I may not accept Theistic Evolution. I probably lean more toward Progressive Creationism, which is the Day-Age Theory. Dr. Ramm of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary accepted this view. I do not believe my cat, Joe Biden, is my distant cousin. I reject Macro-evolution but do accept Micro-evolution. That is why there are various types of cats and different types of human beings. I feel that Naturalism is wrong. In my opinion,there has to be a Great Designer who made things. Someone who has always been. I do not believe creation just popped into existence. To me that is not possible. I believe that the Designer is the Triune God of the Bible. I am an Arminian and believe God gives you the right to accept what you believe. You have the freewill to believe as you wish. I am glad that you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. The world needs Him in a time like this one.