Naturalism

My interest in why people choose naturalism and the explanation of “why” and  “how things came to be” is growing.

Naturalism is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest sense,  naturalistic position says that “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.”   The quote is from the The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This is a metaphysical position.  Being a metaphysical position, it is unprovable by science and that leads me to conclude that the simple definition above is not true.  Since we cannot use science to prove the position we would have to move outside the realm of nature to prove this position and because we are finite and a part of nature, we cannot do that–no man or woman can.

What are your thoughts?

Del.icio.us | Furl | Technorati | Blinklist | reddit | PF Buzz It! | Stumble It! |

UK Poll reveals public doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution and R. Dawkins is mad

The original survey results were reported in the London Telegraph here.  And Richard Dawkins website has a commentary on the results of course.

From the survey:

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand, the findings suggest.

And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

The survey, by respected polling firm ComRes, will fuel the debate around evolution and creationism ahead of next week’s 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings feel that the results show “scientific ignorance among Britons.”

The suggestion that a designer’s input is needed reflects the “intelligent design” theory, promoted by American creationists as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins’ site makes this statement though in fact, Dawkins plainly admits to documentary producer Ben Stein, that there had to be intelligent input into the process to get to where we are today given biological complexity.

Dawkin’s site shows typical Dawkin’s response to these survey results.  But the site reveals, if true, some “radical” thinking on the part of the leadership in the Church of England.

While many fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of the earth’s creation, the Church of England last year issued a statement conceding it had been over-defensive in dismissing Darwin’s ideas in the past.

The Church launched a website promoting the naturalist’s evolutionary views on which it said: “Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.”

I found the website of the Church of England, and, in fact,  the statements on the site were not so apologetic as the Dawkins site appears to claim.  For Malcolm Brown’s full article, click here.

There is much parsing of concepts and definition of terms before the cheerleaders of science and atheism such as Dawkins

Click here for the Dawkin’s site response to eh ComRes survey of Brits attitudes towards the theory of evolution.

From my own experience,  I love the scientific method but it is not fool proof.  There is a place for faith and intuition even in science.

As with any topic here we are open to your comments below or would you pass it on through a reading service?

Del.icio.us | Furl | Technorati | Blinklist | reddit | PF Buzz It! | Stumble It! |