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

I have been thinking about this question for quite some time now, and finally decided to discuss it with you guys.We know that the universe has not existed forever, that is, it had a beginning, a start. Either be it the Big Bang or God creating everything, the universe hasn't always existed. This is a logical deduction from thermodynamics, because if the universe has an infinite past, then there should be no mroe energy 'transfer'.Knowing this, it seems that there are two option concerning the development of life:

1. Either animal kinds are static
   ​
2. Or they are not static, and so they can become other animal kinds given enough time. (I use the word 'kind' instead of 'species' because it has a broader sense then the later)

Now, in a Naturalistic, or atheist etc. point of view, there seems to be only one option: the second one. I come to this conclusion because there are no naturalists that I have ever heard of who are proponents of the first option.Also, it seems a logical conclusion from the fact that we know the universe does not have an infinite past, and so since animals do not pop out of thin air, the only option is that they evolved from a lesser state, and a lesser state, etc. up to a primordial soup. I have to be careful here and make a precision: I am not saying that Neo-Darwinism (as natural selection+mutation are the mechanisms of this evolution) is the only option, but only that evolution is.The Theist, or the non-Naturalist, still has both option. I come to this conclusion because there are Theists who are proponents of both ideas, and also that a universe that had a beginning does not prevent a force, or God, etc. outside of nature to create the animal kinds as static.Please Discuss this.Am I missing an option? Do you think it is possible that the universe does not have a beginning, and thus allowing the first option from a naturalistis point of view ? etc. etc.Edited by Admin, : Improve formatting.Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar in title.

Thanks for explaining what I meant a bit more in detail.To add to that, another option for a naturalist is to consider mutation+natural selection to not be enough to explain what he sees in nature. And so he could propose a third mechanism that would 'add on' to the two already discovered. Hence why I think that, although Evolution is obvious and the only option (as per scientific evidence, as mentionned. I'll add on to that in another post) for a Naturalist, Neo-Darwinian evolution is not.

I agree a complete denial of major scientific laws could allow a naturalist to believe in an eternal universe and static kinds. This is probably the only answer to my last question.But I would find it extremely dichotomic for a Naturalist to reject laws of Nature. Rejecting a law is, in my opinion, much more difficult than a scientific theory, as it is at the top of the ladder of science.

The very definition of supernatural is that it is outside of nature, and as of such it is very logical that by studying nature, he will not find supernatural things, as per the definition.So it seems to me a bit circular to say that the surnatural is dismissed because it cannot be found in nature, or that because nature doesn't allow it, essentially because the definition of supernatural prohibits it to be found in nature.Even if the supernatural could be observed to act in nature, the only evidence you would get would be personnal experience and eye-witness accounts. Since none of these are accepted to establish a scientific fact, a naturalist will never accept these as legitimate proof of the supernatural. (As can easily be seen when someone around here comes along and tells a personnal experience) Yeah I thought about that also, but my text was already all written down, so I didn't want to change anything hh. I could also have said that the solar system hasn't been existing forever because the Sun can't be burning forever, etc. Sorry, how could I do that ? (there are no neutral pronouns in french, so it may be a bit of a problem for me ...)

I do remember saying, at the end of my OP, that A Theist can rightfully believe in Evolution.

I think all you said is straight in line with the last questioned I asked in my OP:Do you think it is possible that the universe does not have a beginning, and thus allowing the first option from a naturalists point of view ?My OP might have been a bit misleading on all this. Naturalism doesn't prohibit by itself the belief in static kinds. Naturalism+a none infinite universe (in the past, at least) does this.

Of course, but this does not mean that observing of nature is the only way to determine what is true.Starting with this axiom: that real truth can only be found through nature, is in itself a philosophical belief called Naturalism. We don't have to fool ourselves on this, all the greatest and brightest scientists up to the modern times were also all very philosophical. You jsut have to look at all the great philosophical quotes that people have in their signature that come from scientists in the vast majority. Its is my belief that true scientists have an equally great understanding of philosophy. Which doesn't seem to be your case considering how you denigrate the Philo-Sophia, or love of wisdom I would disagree. Of course, the word 'kind' comes from the Bible, but this conceptt that their was a rigidity in animal species is there from as soon as man started to observe nature methodotically (Aristotle).Transmutationism was also proposed in ancient Greece, but it was buried behind the much more popular views of Aristotle. It did not surface back until Darwin because until then, there was no evidence in nature that this could be possible. A theist doesn't have to believe a deity is pushing the genes; Anotny Flew believes in a God that never interacts in any way with nature. Being Canadian, I don't think I can vote in the US, so don't worry

One of the possible ways to answer the question in the title which says: Is Evolution is the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ? Is to say 'No, there is a third option'This is not a debate in any form, as I want it to be a discussion. In that regard, I encourage you to participate more actively

A Naturalist is someone who beliefs that matter and energy is all there is. Therefore, nothing supernatural can exist.This is very similar to atheism. There might be nuances between the two, but they are very small and probably not related to the topic at hand.I can't really explain more then that, I'm maybe not being clear enough.

I always liked this quote by GK Chesterton, and I find it appropriate in this discussion: The 'doctrine' would be a proconceived philosophy, such as naturalism or materialism. (Maybe I chose the wrong wording in my OP, since after checking the difference between these two I feel I was thinking more about materialism when writing it down.)If something happened that would contradict a known law of nature, and that it was a genuine experience (not some magic trick), I would define this as a miracle.Now you say that ''if the supernatural were evidenced in nature it would be natural''. But I disagree. The evidence of the supernatural in nature would be through a miracle, and by the definition I gave, a miracle is a genuine experience that contradicts a known law of nature. As of such, it could not be natural and would be discarded by a naturalist as being untrue.I can give a personnal example of a miracle:There is a lady I know very well that was diagnosed with a cancer by her doctor, who used x-rays etc. to identify it. Despite that she had the x-ray right in front of here, she refused to believe it and so went to another city to see another doctor so that he would examine her if she had a cancer. (Health care is free here in quebec, so she was paying herself a little 'luxury' haha) Same tests, same results with the same cancer at the same place. She still didn't accept it, and drove 2 hours to another hospital in another city, and was rechecked if she had cancer. Again, exactly the same results. Now seeing these three independant confirmations that she had a cancer, she finally accepted it. After scheduling here operation to have it removed, she said to the doctor: ''God didn't say his last word on all this!'' and left. Fast forward a month or two later, at the day scheduled for here operation. She was in the hospital elevator with the doctor, all set to go down to the operation room when a nurse came running to announce that the pre-operation tests had revealed that there were no more cancer. The new x-rays were totally different from the three previous ones, and the cancer had in fatc disappeared. When the lady turned to the doctor and asked: 'What happened ?' the doctor simply replied: 'It happenned exactly what you told me.' This was revealing because that doctor was not a christian at all, and yet didn't even try to explain what had happened. He had recognized a miracle when he saw one.Wow that was longer than I thought, I hope you liked it.

Ok thanks, It is philosophical naturalism that I am talkign about

I would be curious to know what that statement is ? Is it: matter and energy are all there is ? I consider something that if something truly disappears, it would violate the law of conservation of energy

That the laws of nature are not violated. So all miracle reports are false because the laws of nature are never violated ? I defined what a miracle was: a violation of a law of nature. I then told a story that, if true, would be a violation of a law of nature (conservation of energy).The question is not wether my story is true or not (I know you think it is not), but rather if this is a legitimate report of a miracle (once again, if true), which you said it wasn't because it did not violate a known law of nature.

We'll continue this later, but I'll just settle that last part: I don't know if your playing with words here, but that first description (atoms being annihilated) was what I meant by that the cancer had disappeared.

I'm replying to Dr.Adequate here, but it will adress many comments made after I was gone.I just want to clear up the misunderstanding on the miracle anecdote. What I was trying to say was this: If it truly is a genuine miracle, in the sense that there really was a supernatural intervention, than it means that atoms have been annihilated.Now, I was not saying that this was the case, but that if it was a miracle, that was what happened. As many others have mentioned, other possible explanations is that there is some unknown physiological process that can make a tumour dissappear in less than two months (she also had regular checkups during that span with the doctor).