[aruanan]

And let's not forget what the real issue is here. It's the same as it was back in Darwin's day. There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation (as stated by some of the top defenders of Darwin in his own day such as Spencer and Huxley). Even though many of these champions of Darwin didn't accept his version of evolution, Darwinism gave them a materialist hook to hang their hopes on and for that they praised him:

Spencer "cheerfully acknowledged" that the hypothesis of evolution had "serious difficulties." But, he said, "save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis." Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology, 1896, 1:466.

"I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it. But...I would very strongly urge upon you [Lyell] that it is the logical development of Uniformitarianism, and that its adoption would harmonize the spirit of Paleontology with that of Physical Geology." Thomas Henry Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1903, 3 volumes, 1:252.

"The possibility, ever so distant, of banishing from nature its seeming purpose, and putting blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes, appears, therefore, as one of the greatest advances in the world of thought." Emil du Bois-Reymond, 1904, cited in J.T. Merz's A history of European thought in the ninetheenth century. 4 volumes, Dover Pub., 1:435.

The truly funny thing is that the philosophical naturalists of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries were so successful in conflating the doctrines of naturalism and evolution together with biological empiricism that many people today think, erroneously, that the essence of science, any field of science, is materialist monism ("The Cosmos is all there is, was, or ever shall be." paraphrase of Carl Sagan). And they could probably even read the following without batting an eye over its sheer intellectual stupidity:

Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation of of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being." (emphasis added)--Karl Vogt.

[Dimensio]

There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation (as stated by some of the top defenders of Darwin in his own day such as Spencer and Huxley)

What do you mean by "special creation"?

[js1138]

Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation of of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being." (emphasis added)--Karl Vogt.

When you add emphasis you should be careful not to add typos and spelling errors. It dimishes you argument, assuming you have one.

[PatrickHenry]

There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation ...

I disagree. If I wanted to be an atheist, then I would reject all religion. There would be no necessity of simultaneously embracing evolution (or what you call "materialism"). There were atheists long before Darwin, and if the Inquisition didn't burn them, I suppose they managed just fine. Darwin's science is accepted by Christians, Jews, and loads of Asians of other sects. And atheists too. It stands (or falls) on its own merits as science.

[whattajoke]

Spencer "cheerfully acknowledged" that the hypothesis of evolution had "serious difficulties." 1896.

1896! Hardly damning... we've come a long way baby. Yeah, I know your post was meant to show us that evolution exists solely as something for evil atheists to point to and say, "There ain't no God, dag nabbit," but still, 108 years of biology is an eternity.

Your second quote, the Huxley one, (from 1903) contains the creationist's favorite grammatical function, the ellipse, which usually elicits an eye-roll and a groan from me. But in this case, I have to ask, WRT that quote, so what?

Your 3rd quote, from some hack philosopher (purely a guess on my part), from some philosophy section of some history book, (from 1904) is again, not pertinent, damning, damaging, important, or cogent to the discussion.

But thanks anway.