Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?

The naturalist's views are forced upon him by nature, not philosophy. He must follow the evidence wherever it leads or he's not a naturalist. If the evidence led to animals poofing into existence, then poofing it is. Evolution is the only option to the naturalist because that is the most parsimonious option the evidence seems to allow. "Seems" because it isn't certain that we've thought of every option yet.The supernatural is dismissed because it is, by its very definition, unevidenced. The naturalist doesn't dismiss it, nature does.The naturalist has any option that nature leave open to him.Also, it isn't necessary to go all the way back to the BB and get tangled up in all that theoretical stuff. It was less than a third of that when the slag we call continents started floating to the top at a temperature a few thousand degrees warmer the life appreciates. I don't know why but the masculine pronouns are grating at me this morning. I do wish the language had neutral pronouns. How hard would that be?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Good morning slevesqueMaybe it's a problem of language, but I fail to see where our statements differ. If the supernatural were evidenced in nature it would be natural. If it were natural, naturalist would accept it as such. It's more tautological than circular I'd imagine.AbE: Or maybe not: By "a priori" do you claim philosophical naturalist reject the supernatural without examination, but merely on philosophical grounds? I ask because I see "a priori" used loosely, meaning: they've stopped bothering to look, more often then not. But I can't see you being that sloppy with the language. If that is your claim, it's darned interesting. As to the pronoun problem, I was complaining that I had no neutral, third person pronouns, not that you weren't using them. English has a few neutral pronouns but they're all plural except for one, "one". And where one can use "one" to refer to a generic person, or oneself, one gets just as tired of writing it as one does of reading it.I'm going fishing off Nonamesset Island this morning.Edited by lyx2no, : Didn't see this till after I posted.Edited by lyx2no, : Add third person.Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling, got to go.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Regarding your story (I first thought the miracle was the three, timely x-rays under the rationed, Canadian health care system.) . does it not bother you the all the right bits are there. And all the right bits are missing. The pious lady and her pronouncement that ''God didn't say his last word on all this!'' and a Dr. who agrees to having a miraculous case study on hand but appears to have done no follow-up. Surely modern medicine would find this a tad curious. Might want to collect the x-rays and stuff. You know, do some of that documentation junk. Or has the Canadian health care system replaced name brand documentation with generic anecdote?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Amelioration of 15 kiloton blast as second assumption.Anybody got a few more.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.