Replies

Arguing from a purely naturalistic viewpoint in such matters renders the arguement, in the face of overwhelming evidnece to the contrary, unscientific. It makes such arguemtns pure apologetics.

Indeed, CottShop. The epistemelogical foundation of the purely naturalistic view point is indistinguishable from the one that asserts the creationist view. In both cases, we start with a presupposition that controls the identification and qualification of evidence. If we seek only natural causes, only evidence conforming with that expectation will be selected. Same thing for the creationist presupposition. It seems both start with a conclusion, and then seek support from evidence after the fact. "Non-conforming" evidence is disregarded. Given this procedure, the presupposition infallibly ends up being the conclusion. Under the circumstances, one wonders why anyone bothers to justify either exercise as a legitimate mode of inquiry in the first place.

I'm with you, CottShop: Let the evidence speak for itself, and then follow the trail wherever it leads. Don't "torture" selective evidence into saying whatever it is we want it to say. For as you note, then we've left the precincts of science and are doing apologetics instead.

I think a little humility is called for on both sides of this debate. Etienne Gilson's insight strikes me as a sound way to put these matters into a proper perspective:

If the scientist refuses to include final causality [e.g., inversely-causal meta-information] in his interpretation of nature, all is in order; his interpretation of nature will be incomplete, not false. On the contrary, if he denies that there is final causality in nature, he is being arbitrary. To hold final causality to be beyond science is one thing; to put it beyond nature is something completely different. ... Explanations which rely on final causality have often been ridiculed, but mechanistic explanations have often been ridiculed also, and this does not disqualify the legitimacy of either point of view. — From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, John Lyon, tr., Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, p. 26.

Sounds about right to me!

Thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post CottShop!

The epistemelogical foundation of the purely naturalistic view point is indistinguishable from the one that asserts the creationist view. In both cases, we start with a presupposition that controls the identification and qualification of evidence.

Precisely so.

At the root, both statements "Nature did it" and "God did it" cut off the investigation prematurely - all the more so as a presupposition.

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!