There Is No Science But Naturalism And Darwin Is Its Prophet!

No one has yet successfully refuted these logical propositions. -8/28/2008 SK

Academic Freedom of Inquiry. That’s the primary message of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed! It’s what ol’ Sirius has been growling about for some time and [finally] somebody is actually doing something about it! Thanks to Ben’s documentary [and the previous groundwork laid by Behe, Dembski and others, most notably the Discovery Institute] folks are standing up against dogma and for scientific/academic freedom of inquiry.

The modern scientific establishment has decided by scholastic fiat that naturalism [i.e. – atheism] shall be the basis of all science. In doing so, they have a priori excluded the possibility of the supernatural, of God. They have mandated that an entire body of possible explanation be banned from consideration. Only explanations consistent with pure naturalism will be allowed.

There are a couple of flaws to this approach:

  • 1. If God exists, there exists the possibility that some problems will require a supernatural answer.
    • 1a. This is not to say that all problems will require a supernatural answer [an appeal to God, if you will] or that no problems will have natural explanations.
    • 1b. Given the intricacy and complexity of design observable in nature, but also the inter-relatedness of its systems, laws, ecologies and species, we should expect to see that a majority of the problems shall have natural solutions. To put it another way, since the supernatural [God] has set up [created] the natural world and its laws, processes, et cetera, and since we observe the natural world we inhabit and have limited or no access to the supernatural [here, being that which exists outside the natural] apart from God’s will and revelation, we should expect that most solutions of the natural world shall be natural.
    • 1c. Since the world has a supernatural designer, a minority of data and problems shall certainly require a supernatural explanation [again, if God does indeed exist].
    • 1d. Problems requiring [not possibly owing to] a supernatural explanation will be unexplainable by natural processes alone. [Note that this is not a “god of the gaps” approach or argument from ignorance. Problems requiring a supernatural explanation would not be explainable by naturalism. In other words, it would be found that naturalism was inadequate to explain the problem but that intelligent design did, not merely that naturalism could not explain it yet.] This would include things which are irreducibly complex or inconceivably improbable for natural processes to account for [as Dembski pointed out, why should naturalism get a free lunch?], such as elements of intelligent design [for example: irreducible complexity, unaccountable ascending orders of information, a “fingerprint” of homologous design elements incorporated into differing processes/entities and input of new information such as that required for the origin of the universe and life] or phenomena that may only be explained by intervention [an overruling of natural law and processes] by the supernatural.
  • 2. If God exists, He exists whether He is allowed as a viable or valid explanation or not.
  • 3. If God exists and the supernatural is a priori ruled out as a possible answer to any problem, science MUST needs be wrong at some point.
    • 3a. If science a priori rules out the supernatural as a possibility, its methodology and bias will prevent it from coming to any conclusions, save naturalism.
    • 3b. If God exists, the presumption of pure naturalism is incorrect.
    • 3c. If science persists in its presumption of pure naturalism and refusal to consider supernatural explanations, it will become something other than science, something closer to dogma.
  • 4. Ruling out the supernatural as a solution a priori is unscientific.
    • 4a. True science follows the evidence wherever it leads, without regard for opinions, institutions or prevailing paradigms of the day.
    • 4b. To state it another way, Freedom of Inquiry is a requirement of true science, since without freedom of inquiry science cannot be self-correcting.
    • 4c. Ruling out a set of possible explanations a priori simply begs the question of naturalism. As such, it is a dogmatic denialism of all other possibility.
    • 4d. Legitimately ruling out the supernatural as a possible set of explanation would either require omniscience on the part of scientists or the equivalent net result of omniscience, having explored all possible solutions, legitimately answered every question with naturalism and having ruled the supernatural out by default.
      • 4d[i]. The first requirement would require an attribute of the supernatural which would preclude pure naturalism from being the sole answer to all questions.
      • 4d[ii]. The second requirement also requires freedom of inquiry in order to succeed, but would require the final solution and therefore the culmination [end] of all scientific inquiry.
      • 4d[iii]. Ruling out the supernatural as a possible set of explanation without either omniscience or the completion of all scientific inquiry is simply a leap of faith or belief of bias and cannot be said to have been accomplished through proper scientific inquiry.
  • 5. Ruling out the supernatural a priori as possible is irrational.
    • 5a. As has been demonstrated scientifically, the mind [consciousness/soul/sapience] is separate from the physicality of the brain or even the body. The soul [as consciousness] can be inferred from the scientific method yet the soul [being outside the realm of pure naturalism] is supernatural. [Assertions that consciousness arises naturally as the result of sufficient complexity of intelligence is mere conjecture/speculation based on assumptions of pure naturalism and must be taken by faith, as must all speculations of origins.]
    • 5b. There are also problems and subjects which lie outside of natural science, which it may speculate about but could never conceivably prove or test, especially matters of origins. Naturalism may speculate about such metaphysical problems, but it makes an a priori assumption of pure naturalistic/mechanistic processes in doing so.
    • 5c. The assertion that natural science will eventually attain sufficient knowledge and resources to determine all solutions as naturalistic is a statement of faith.
    • 5d. The fact that neither Darwinism [limited specifically to the development of biology though not its ultimate origin] and naturalism [the assumption of purely natural solutions for all problems] is an adequate explanation for the whole of human experience [including the soul, why reason should be trusted, questions of significance, why universal morality exists and exists as it does, et cetera] should require, for the sake of intellectual honesty, an exploration of other theories and sets of possible explanation which might better account for the entire picture. The prohibition against such freedom of inquiry is irrational, as it must be pronounced based on a presumption of faith, not reason.

Fortunately, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Men and women are standing up for academic freedom. Academic Freedom bills are being introduced in states all over the country. In fact, there is a move to try to secure this freedom at the national level. At a website called, you can add your name to a petition that reads:

“We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation’s academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner.”

It’s a step in the only direction that is consistent with true scientific inquiry.

Make your stand.

–Sirius Knott

25 Comments Add yours

  1. Clark Bunch says:

    Wow! I did a critique of the Ben Stein trailer weeks before the movie opened, and that post was the most read thing I’ve ever written. Mostly it was read by atheists who crawled out of the woodwork to tell me what a brainless, Bible thumping sap I was. You might take some heat for this strongly worded thesis, but hang in there. I think you logic and reasoning are solid.

    By the way, I just finished reading the new book by Becky Garrison on “The New Atheist Crusaders.” You might want to check it out.

  2. vitaminbook says:

    “I want religion in science classes! I want religion in science claaaases! Please, someone take us seriously!”

  3. Olorin says:

    You’re a bit late to the game, Sirius. We started kicking supernatural explanations out of science 400 years ago. And it has served us well.

    Before 1650, we knew that God kept the planets in their orbits. Now we think gravitation does the job. Which of these do you think does a better job predicting spacecraft trajectories?

    Before 1780, lightning was the visible wrath of God. Franklin and Faraday gave us natural explanations. Which of these explanations resulted in electric lights and video games?

    Before 1800, we know that God’s Flood produced the major features of the Earth. Now we know about plate tectonics and gradual erosion. Which od these theories is more likey to find new oil deposits?

    Before 1860, we knew that animals and plants were individually created with no relationships among them. Now we know about evolution. Which of these theories allows us to produce better vaccines?

    Before 1870, we knew that diseases resulted from possession by demons. Now we know that microbes cause many diseases. Which of these theories do you think offers the best hope for cures?

    Tell us again why we were better off with the old supernatural explanations than we are now with the naturalistic theories. ‘Academic freedom’ has nothing to do with the matter. Any time you or anyone else can show solid evidence that God-did-it offers a better way to understand and control a phenomenon, then science will not only welcome you with open arms, you will be on a fast track for a Nobel prize. But, so far….

  4. Eric Kemp says:


    As far as I can tell, Sirius wasn’t talking about bringing back old superstition. It seemed that he was only pointing out, and quite clearly, the illogical nature of ruling out the supernaturial a priori. Funny that instead of actually responding to his post, you decided to make fun of him. Why is that? Because you KNOW that ruling out the supernatural a priori is unscientific and you have no answer.

    But to respond to your response. You are missing out the part where the founders of science, Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Copernicus, Kepler, the list goes on; were all Bible believing creationists by belief. It doesn’t seem to have slowed them down, so why do you think it would slow us down today?

    Before 1800: Are you saying that we’ve observed and can test the gradual erosion, that produced the Grand Canyon for example?

    Before 1860: Are you saying that evolution, the molecules-to-man sense, is observable? That there are no problems with it? The theory is bullet-proof? Are you saying that discovering the bacteria can adapt would not have happened if we didn’t first assume that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we call came from monkeys?

  5. Sirius says:


    It appears you are a prophet! These guys are amazing. But cute in their naive zeal. Thank you for your kind comments.


    Well put! Why aren’t these guys responding to what I actually said? Maybe they can’t.

    And good points about unobservable evolution and the weakness of the gradual erosion model for such geological forms as the Grand Canyon!


    When I take into account that you’re actually trying to beat the thatch out of a tired old straw man [the idea that the Establishment Clause requires a solely secular state, despite myriad references to God in our Constitution, on our monuments and other significant religious references [like those in our oaths of office] throughout our government], I should like to assure you that if that’s all you got, we need not take YOU seriously. Especially since you’ve not bothered to answer a single one of my points.

    And we have a new troll in our midst…


    Like Vitaminbook, you seem unconcerned with actually addressing the points I’ve made. Have you conceded them?

    It will be my pleasure to point out your starw man arguments and loaded questions to those who read this blog. Pay attention.

    You’re using the tired old reason versus superstition straw man [used interchangably with science versus religion] and you are using the same old sweeping generalities and apparent lack of historical and theological doctrine I usually encounter when someone is dumb enough to invoke this whipping child.

    The first thing your argument fails to take into account is that the scientists who gave us these discoveries, by and large, believed in God. In historical context, some were mere deists, but a good number were Christian theists. They studied the natural world because they believed that God had made it and had given them reason by which to study it and that, thus, it should operate according to comprehensible laws which would help them to better understand the character and power of their Creator. From this set of presuppositions, derived from a Creationist understanding of the natural world, was born the scientific method.

    The reason I bring this up is because your science versus religion straw man pretends that because these men made scientific discoveries that they did not also espouse religion. Your dichotomy crumbles when we give the pages of history even a cursory look. The truth is that deist and theist scientists gave us the scientific method and the majority of the scientific discoveries you cite. Thus, your rational science verus superstitious religion is proven a false dichotomy. Or as they say in my neck of the woods, that dog don’t hunt! That’s what you get for using a reductionist argument.

    The second thing that your argument fails to take into account is a bit of theological perspective. For example, you make note that lightning has been seen as an instrument of the wrath of God, but so have other purely natural devices such as kings, armies, plagues and famines. Just because we understand how the mechanism works does not preclude God from using it for His purposes. To put it a different way, before we discovered how lightning works, we did suppose that it was the visible wrath of God [though not every time; sometimes we saw it as just a storm!], but even if we understand how it works, this doesn’t keep God from using it any more than man’s understanding of electricity keeps us from using it. You see, these God-fearing scientists did believe that God created lightning [and all other weather], but since the world operated by comprehensiblelaws he set in place, they wanted to know HOW it worked. I should also like to add that understanding how something works says nothing about whether God exists or not [except that the very comprehensibility of the universe speaks more for a Creator God than an improbable series of purely naturalistic free lunches!] for if man erroneously attributed these things [lightning, gravity, et cetera] to the direct hand of God [divine intervention, aka a miracle or a conscious and specific override of natural law] instead of attributing them to the indirect hand of God [products of the laws and systems He set in place], it says only that we did not quite understand how things worked just yet. Yet if we were wrong about whether it was the direct hand of God or not, this could never disprove the existence of God, though it does disprove an imperfect understanding of God.

    I should like to re-emphasize that understanding how a mechanism or process works [like gravity or electricity] doesn’tpreclude God from using the mechanism or process for His purposes. Consider this: If I say that I caught a fish, but it was really the hook on the end of the line of the fishing pole in my hand, am I lying when I say that I caught it? No, whether I say I caught the fish or the hook did, I am not lying. Both are true. I caught the fish – not with my bare hands, mind you [a direct hand], but with a device or mechanism I was controlling [an indirect hand]. God keeps the planets in orbit; He uses gravity.

    Before I address your loaded questions, I should like to note that catastrophism better explains the geological/fossil record. Neocatastrophists [who do not hold to the Biblical account] are increasing amongst the ranks of former uniformitarians. The evidence heavily suggests rapid burial and fossilization. [As to the loaded question you pose: If neocatastrophists and their Biblical counterparts prove that coal and oil can be made rapidly by processes mimicking catastrophism, which scientific theory do you think oil companies will be more interested in?] I should also like to note that evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology and that the age of the Earth is in dispute whether you your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and scream, “Lalalala! That’s not what my textbooks say! I can’t hear you!” to drown me out or not.

    Now to the loaded questions.

    Question #1
    [Before 1650…] : Which of these [God keeps the planet in their orbits OR the mechanism of gravity] does a a better job predicting spacecraft trajectories? The obvious answer to this loaded question is that specific knowledge of how the mechanism works is more applicable to this specific problem than a general knowledge of Who is responsible for putting the laws of gravity into place and sustaining them. This does not preclude the possibility that God does in fact hold the planets by gravitation.

    Question #2
    [Before 1780…] : Which of these explanations [lightning is the visible wrath of God OR specific knowledge of how the mechanism of electricity works] resulted in electric lights and video games? Again, the question is worded in such a way that only one answer would ever be applicable, for specific knowledge of how the mechanism works is more beneficial to application of the mechanism than the general knowledge of Whom is responsible for establishing the mechanism.

    Question #3
    [Before 1800…] : Which of these theories [Global Flood model [which, incidentally, includes application of plate tectonics and rapid erosive forces!] or the uniformitarian model involving erosion and plate tectonics] is more likely to find new oil deposits? Here, you suppose that the rate at which oil deposits is created would have some great bearing on where they are right now. Both models use plate tectonics, applications of geophysics, et cetera to determine how oil deposits were created. They are not very dissimilar, except that a growing number of neocatastropists now recognize that sudden formation by extreme forces is a more likely candidate given the evidence. Again, nice try.

    Question #4
    [Before 1860…] : Which of these theories [plants and animals being created according to their kind but also according to a common design and common building blocks OR evolution] allows us to produce better vaccines? Wow. What a red herring. Origins has nothing to do with creating a better vaccine, because BOTH models predict adaptation of the species and mutation, but give them different significance according to their model’s presuppositions.

    Question #5
    [Before 1870…] : Which of these theories [disease as demonic in origin OR disease as caused by microbes] is more likely to find a cure? As has been addressed in the answers to questions #1 & #2, The specific knowledge of how a mechanism or process works is more beneficial forfinding a cure than the general knowledge of who – whether human, divine or demonic – is responsible for using the mechanism or process. It’s like asking whether knowing who set loose a genetically engineered plague or how the plague works is more beneficial to finding a cure. Both answers could be applicable, depending on whether we want to cut out the specific problem [the plague] or nip the problem at the bud [stop it at its origins].

    Next time, Olorin, bring your brain and not just your dogma. Think for yourself instead of just bleating what they’ve told you.

    –Sirius Knott

  6. vitaminbook says:


    That last line of yours would sound a lot more convincing if you didn’t parrot Answers in Genesis almost word-for-word. Or maybe you’re getting your ‘scientific’ knowledge elsewhere? It’s hard to tell, since they all parrot AiG as well….

    There’s a good reason why I don’t bother to answer your points directly; you’re a joke. Arguing with you would be an excersize in futility, especially since we’d largely be arguing about a topic you know nothing about. You’d actually have to know something about science to realize how wrong you are in pretty much everything you say about evolution, and I sure don’t have the patience to teach you. If I wanted to bang my head against the Idiot Wall for a few hours, I’d go talk to some Geocentrists.

  7. Eric Kemp says:

    Sirius, I don’t think they know what to do with you. They ask sarcastic questions, expecting you to have no answers, and then you thoroughly breakdown their argument and show how it holds no water. They must hate that. From one ignorant country bumpkin to another, a tink yur purty smert.

  8. Sirius says:


    You don’t bother to answer my points because YOU CAN’T!

    Arguing with me woould be an exercise in futility because I’m bloody right!

    But go ahead, give it your best shot. If you’re not too terribly busy with that Idiot wall of yours, that is. C’mon. Bring your whole team and all of your friends. God has made foolishness of the so-called wisdom of this age and will continue to do so, so long as men and women of God are willing to stand up and faithfully be the pillar and ground of truth.

    [No, I don’t get all of my science from AiG. In fact, I read Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins, et cetera but find myself amazed out how much better the Bible explains the world we live in. Go figure. If God exists, that would kinda make sense, huh?]


    They do hate me, but it’s not entirely their fault. I’m about as subtle as a chainsaw.

    –Sirius Knott

    P.S. – Isn’t there anyone who can answer these points?

  9. Eric Kemp says:


    You have employed these hit and run tactics every where I’ve encountered you. If Sirius was really a joke to you, then you’d be able to easily at least answer his objections/assertions. The fact that you call Sirius a joke and don’t answer him is hilariously hypocritical.

    But more to the point: If your goal is to insult those who disagree with you, why do you post in the first place? Isn’t it a waste of time for you?

  10. Sirius says:

    This reminds me of an old post I’d written on Why Darwinists Argue.


    –Sirius Knott

  11. vitaminbook says:

    I don’t want to be rude (alright, I do), but seeing you two congratulating each other is like watching the gold and silver medalists at the Stupid Olympics high-fiving enthusiastically.

    Way to go, guys!

    But more to the point: If your goal is to insult those who disagree with you, why do you post in the first place? Isn’t it a waste of time for you?

    I used to be one of those naieve atheists who thought I could break people like you out of the cult, but you’ve convinced me it’s more or less pointless. Now I do it for fun.

  12. Sirius says:


    At least, you’re honest. I’ll be sure not to make the mistake of taking you seriously in the future.I hope my readership will also take notice.

    –Sirius Knott

  13. bob says:

    “Ruling out the supernatural as a solution a priori is unscientific.” Uh, science seeks to explain the natural world. The supernatural lies beyond the natural world, and is thus irrelevant to science. Nice try, though. Chump.

  14. Sirius says:


    The supernatural may inferred from the available data, much as superstrings and the like may be inferred from the data.

    Today’s science seeks not only to explain the natural world but to mandate that the supernatural does not exist.

    Back atcha, Chimp.

    –Sirius Knott.

  15. bob says:

    Not quite there yet, champ. The neat thing about the universe is that it contains everything. Neutrinos are only inferred from meticulous nuclear reaction data, but no one calls those supernatural.

    If someone did a double blind medical study that proved praying to an otherwise-undetectable dragon in my garage cures 100% of cancer patients, that no one would call that dragon supernatural. It’d be part of the natural universe (though oddly so because it only is detectable via its prayer-based cancer-curing). Any time you’d like to offer up some proof for a deity, I’m sure the whole of humanity will line up to hear it and agree your god is part of the natural world.

    Supernatural explanations are not necessary to explain the universe. You only need them if you commit logical fallacies and ignore Occam’s razor.

    Do you also believe in ESP, ghosts, and alien abductions? Just wondering.

  16. Eric Kemp says:


    I have a question for you, do laws of logic exist?

  17. bob says:

    Eric, they clearly don’t exist here. “I should also like to note that evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology.” Dig up some 3.5 billion year old humans or giraffes or sperm whales, and you’ll quickly falsify evolution.

    Oh, wait, that would be impossible, since the earth is only six thousand years old. Nevermind.

  18. Sirius says:


    You’re using the currently favored antiCreationist tactic: mockery [as opposed to using actual argument or, date I say, logic]. The laws of logic do exist here. The reason you don’t find yourself in agreement with me is because you’re not using logic or reason; you’re parroting dogma.

    Evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology. It is unfalsifiable due to its speculative nature and due to the limits of naturalism.

    I’ve already addressed your proposed falsification method elsewhere, but for the sake of argument: How would you determine the age of said human and/or mammalian fossils? Oh,that’s right, the fossils are dated by index fossils. In fact, they’re dated by the most RECENT index fossils they contain, meaning we would never find a 3.5 billion year old human, because they would automatically date the fossils according to their preconceptions.

    Oh, but I see you’ve come to your senses and now accept the Biblical YEC timeframe. Good to see you using your brain for once.

    –Sirius Knott

  19. bob says:

    “Oh, but I see you’ve come to your senses and now accept the Biblical YEC timeframe. Good to see you using your brain for once.”

    Holy cow, I’ll assume you’re joking there. But anyways …

    A quick google search would have set you straight. However, I’m not surprised to see you toss this out there, since, to quote Steven Jay Gould (via the article I’ll link to), ‘creationists are “singularly devoid of shame” in their willingness to use any argument, no matter how vacuous or frequently refuted, in making their case against evolution.’ Link:

    You also dropped the term “non-falsifiable” in a non-ironic sense. Uh, you believe in a god. That’s about as non-falsifiable as it gets. You seem to like logical fallacies, have you heard of inconsistency?

  20. Eric Kemp says:


    Sarcasm does not answer my question. In general, do the laws of logic exist?

  21. bob says:

    Eric, I have no clue what you’re getting at. As such, I don’t feel comfortable giving you a direct answer lest it get twisted around and thrown back at me. I don’t know what you mean by “laws of logic”; if you explain your question more and I make my way back here, I’ll answer.

    But, like I said on Eric’s blog, I don’t think I’ll be coming back for any responses. Enjoy the celebration of ‘defeating’ another ‘dogmatic materialist.’

    You can argue all day, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that you guys start with your conclusions and rationalize them after the fact. You might try thinking freely for once. Just sayin’.

  22. Sirius says:


    I am joking on that point. Good job picking up on that. It’s called irony. Satire. I’ve no doubt you’re still seriously mislead about the age of the universe.

    And if you think “a quick Google search” is the answer to ANY argument, you’re a bleeding idiot! There’s ten times as much bunk as there is half-truths on the Net, and a hundred times as much half-truths, half-formed opinion, dogma and bias as there is lucid argument.

    Point in fact, the site you’ve linked gives advise on how to defend evolution against a variation of the “survival of the fittest” straw man, WHICH I HAVE NEVER USED. You’d know this, if you’d ever actually read what I’ve posted. The links I provided go to blogs I’ve written on why I think evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology. I’m not parroting someone else’s party line. I’m not linking to someone else’s site, especially not one I’ve barely glanced over simply to make sure it included the right combination of keywords. I’m not quoting the screed of some popular apologist. I actually thought about it, reasoned it out and set my arguments out. You should try this sometime.

    In fact, USAmerica’s Independence Day is coming up soon, so why not celebrate and HAVE AN INDEPENDENT THOUGHT!

    Are atheists and evolutionists actually this pathetic? Are you just intellectual frauds or outright cowards? I am bloody sick of the poor argument skills of the average advocate of naturalism, be it atheism in general or evolutionism specifically.

    If the best you guys can do is to do “a quick Google search” so that you won’t have to reason through an argument yourself….

    If the best you can do is to link to someone else’s list of rebuttals, because independent thought is just not your thing…

    If the best you can do is to appeal to a higher power, or some better mind than yourself or however you put it, like TalkOrigins or Pharyngula or, because an appeal to authority doesn’t bother you, because you like it when other folks do the thinking for you so you can get back to really important things like American Idol or Facebook…

    If the best you can do is quote those higher powers because they always say it better than you could, because you can’t think of anything to say when your brain’s critical facilities are parked in neutral, occupied as you are with basking in the gee shucks glow of your favorite godless godling…

    If the best you can do is simple mockery of what you cannot comprehend….


    If you truly advocate atheism or evolutionism, might I suggest it best that you simply SHUT UP. Because you’re only helping me. Your ill-spouted screed, rabid bias and bleated dogma do a grave disservice to actual argument. You make atheists and evolutionists look like raving, knuckle-dragging trolls with the personality of ground beef. Every time you open you mouth, someone like Dawkins, that absurd Hitchen fellow or PZ “Wackaloon” Myers has to work that much harder to sound credible. And THOSE guys need all the help they can get! Come to think of it, this advice would apply equally to them. Maybe if these pop atheists and pop darwinists shut up, the real scientists could intelligibly argue this important debate.

    Oh, and Creationism is an unfalsifiable tautology. That is, it’s science based on presuppositions based on a religion which requires faith, but not blind faith, rather it requires a reasonable faith. No one is arguing that Creationism is anything but science based on a reasonable faith supported by a weight of evidences and arguments. Our position is well established. The only way it might even conceivably be falsifiable is outside the realm of possibility: that mankind would gain infinite knowldge and also find a naturalistic explanation for everything. Let’s face it: We’ll never last that long!

    So much for your red herring. The question is whether Darwinism is also an unfalsifiable tautology or not. The question is whether presuming the truth of naturalism is scientific or even rational.

    –Sirius Knott

  23. bob says:

    Boy, I’m glad I came back! It’d be a shame if you recorded all that vitriol and I didn’t get to see it.

    I do apologize for having trouble picking up on your sarcasm. Your arguments are so bizarre to me that I have trouble detecting when you are making them a little more over-the-top for the sake of exaggeration or sarcasm. I think this may be a corollary to Poe’s Law: without an emoticon, it is impossible to be certain whether a fundamentalist is exaggerating their claims. (Speaking of cheeky internet ‘laws’, I noticed the Hitler-bomb you dropped in your most recent post … might want to check out Godwin’s law.)

    I did manage to pick out of that diatribe some hate and disrespect for me because I dared to post a link. You truck out refuted arguments as a rule, so I’m pointing you to where those have been refuted. Your buddy Eric just tossed out the “we haven’t seen kinds evolve into other kinds” canard, would you prefer that I rewrite the refutation in my own words rather than provide links to the readily-available information that you people ignore?

    What happens when you eventually claim evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? Do I have to dust off my thermo book to study up and compose my own independent refute, or do I get to link to any of the many sites that refute it?

    How does rewriting the BS you’ve been fed make it better? You mockingly claimed I have no independent thought … someone told you to believe in the deity you believe in! Independent thought, indeed! On the other hand, two decades worth of teachers (and counting) have told me how to learn and how to perform science and how to evaluate evidence. Clearly, these lessons fell on deaf ears in your case.

    Finally, by the time I slogged my way through your ranting to the penultimate paragraph, I realized that I really shouldn’t have bothered coming back. You admit your ‘theory’ is unfalsifiable, you think your faith is somehow reasonable, and you think evolution is only falsifiable with some kind of intelligence singularity. Okay, pal, whatever you say.

    I’d provide a link to some kind of checklist to see if someone is a pseudoscientist (based on ancient wisdom, avoids peer-review, cites ‘big problems’ with the accepted explanations, etc), but I’d hate to see the backlash if I dared post another link.

  24. Eric Kemp says:

    It’s so funny that you are incredulous about the “kinds canard” but you KNOW there is no way to observe, test, or falsify the theory. It’s like you use incredulity to mask contradictory evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s