Methodological Naturalism is fallacious

Darwin infact shown the reduction of information and was humble to do so, I do not believe he would have believed in neo-Darwinism, if he had the knowledge that mutations do not show new designs in part or in full.Paul, I understand MN, and I enjoy your posts, because on a logical level they are challenging and intelligent, this is why your personal comments are not understandable to me.You are right - evolution "won", but what is the truth? Do you really believe that animated matter can come about by itself?Your answer is that incredulity is logically irrelevant. This is true, BUT I know that you know that design is a truism. Exactly why would this not favour a designer? I urge you to re-think it again.Evolution has won, because sin has won. Even as this world grows worse and worse, because people choose to reject God, when the whole creation clearly shows Him. If it were not so, I would not have told you, but as much as I can know - I do know.You can trust me because I was the one who was willing to reject God for truth, but I have been shown that mutation, chance, selection, it's all so very weak!Even NS that Darwin found, reduces and SPECIALIZEs, but what is the difference between "new" and "unique"?I KNOW you are smart enough to se the difference!Forgive my evangelism.

I have the highest regard for your posts because you have just gone into all of the information, and directly answered me with rational exposition, and you did it without stating things about mike or his eyes! That's it. But I disagree that these theories do not rule out a special creator. There are certain theological conundrums that make it clear that you have to rule out the literalism of the scriptures, such as the problem of evil.Example; If death and suffering were always there, then when God said, "behold, it was very good", in the beginning, then God sees death and suffering as good, and Christ died on the cross not to claim the victory over death, as the NT expounds, but for a mythical morally "nice" metaphor. And what about Revelation, "neither shall there be any curse any more, no more pain, no more tears", (paraphrase). What's that? A nice poem? This is not satisfying to my mind, Mod!Logically, I do not reject theories that do not require that I dispose of biblical literalism BECAUSE if you look at those theories, they explain the rules, but they don't say that the system produced the system. They don't impinge on a special creator.Mod', there is no point in saying that evolution, chemical and biological, don't rule out a special creator. They do so great a harm that they render Him the weakest irrelevant entity, that surely doesn't exist in any meaningful way.It's because you start out with a natural idea, and then add a natural method which GUARANTEES a naturalist answer.The next post is general, to you and everyone, as my final thoughts. I hope you consider it. That sounds nice, but the fact is that in a natural universe, you will find natural explanations, as this is self-evident. Does this mean we can step into the dark, and declare that our powerful but small light vanquishes it?There is a difference between repeatable, experimental, factual observational, parsimonious theory, and theory that makes grandiose assumptions pertaining to the big picture.I see no observable proves of any kind of evolution whatsoever. I see the equivocation of mutations adapting as a very weak example, when the claim is that every design came from each other, after coming from the ground, after the ground coming from nothing.There are no new designs in nature. I agree on the facts, not the hypothetics which strike me as , well - hypothetical., look at a cladogram! Dino to bird. Sure, nice bit of art but do we assume it happened then?It gets to the point now where people are so convinced evolution is true, that they will ad-hoc any contrary explanation, because afterall - we know evolution happened, right?I go back to my red-ball theory definition of evidence. I have now collected 2 trillion red balls. 1 green ball will spoil my theory. But we all know that red-ball theory is true, so that green ball you picked up is really red!(Bye for now, best regards,..)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

(I am not an all-seeing prophet, just an all-compulsive lunatic..Here are some of my thoughts in the hope you will think about it.)FINAL THOUGHTSYou have to remember that this is not a simplistic topic. Look at naturalism again, it is tautologous to expect natural explanations within a "natural" system. You expect football rules in games of "football".What is "natural" anyway? NosyNed hit on it. It's the realities, we just happen to be aware of. There are problems, such as logical positivism.That we know things about the system we are in, certain rules or laws, is fine. But then are we going to say; "The reality we know was created by the reality we know."Is that the argument? It's one of them, but the important point here is that if you make a method that favours "reality we know", and you want an explanation according to the "reality we know", and you rule out ANY metaphysical "none-known" components, then you have problems of argumentum ad ignorantium for starters.This dark area you have entered cannot be truly understood by science.I do not dismiss the power of science because I know that it is tautologous to expect rules within the system which are explicable. I do not however, believe that this enables us to go into a vast area of darkness, with that small but powerful torch, and find all of the answers.What about answers that aren't scientific? If science touches on them, is it becuase it is stating something about reality?I don't think chemical evolution, for starters, has anything to do with the reality we know, which is information being replicated ad nauseum. I don't think biological evolution is parsimonious because I think a better explanation is what reality alone shows, which is gene pools being culled of information, and in time providing some amazing adaptations due to the unique combination of the given trait.Example: mum has athletic legs, dad has athletic lungs. Together they both have the traits that make their son athletic, apart, they do not. The logical conundrum is explicable, because a unique combination of information, gives you a unique albeit OLD information.Please think about what I have said, this is my final post. (No really, I am not coming back to this thread to even read as it will result in my mind regurgitating the same questions and answers for about eleven hours.) Kind regards, the mad wizman.