“This does not mean that miracles do not occur. A key doctrine to my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense – there is the matter of Jesus’s Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense.”Yet, one wonders what thoughts the likes of Eugenie Scott, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et. al., are having as they smirk behind Miller’s back. For true evolutionists understand the implications of their naturalistic worldview with regards to religious belief. Phillip Johnson has said,
When God's existence is no longer a fact but a subjective belief (and a highly controversial belief at that), God's moral authority disappears. (emphasis in original)So Ed has done nothing up to this point except to show that there are other people as logically inconsistent as he is. William Dembski said it well, referring to theistic evolutionists, in his book Intelligent Design,
“If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God’s purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. …For the Darwinian establishment the “theism” in theistic evolution is superfluous. For the hard-core naturalist, theistic evolution at best includes God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of life. Thus by Occam’s razor, since God is an unnecessary rider in our understanding of the physical world, theistic evolution ought to dispense with all talk of God outright and get rid of the useless adjective theistic.” (emphasis in original)Ed plays the card, which I’ve heard before, that methodological naturalism is different from metaphysical naturalism and, therefore, there is no tie between the evolution and atheism. This is pure nonsense. The logical implications of one conjoin it to the other. Johnson also states,
When "methodological naturalism" is combined with a very strong a priori confidence that materialistic theories invoking only unintelligent causes can account for such phenomena as genetic information and human intelligence, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism tends to collapse.To quote Dembski again,
“Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists.” (emphasis added)Ed refers to Daniel Dennett and William Provine, the full-blooded Darwinists I brought up, as being consistent atheists and not consistent evolutionists. He would do well to listen to what Dennett, Provine, Dawkins, Futuyma, and many others are saying, because their thinking is fully consistent with the logical implications of the evolutionary paradigm that is grounded in methodological naturalism. And this is where all those who claim to have “non-atheistic paradigms or worldviews that use inferences drawn from evolution” must face up to reality of the nonsensical approach they have taken. C. S. Lewis said,
“Materialism [naturalism] gave us a theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid.”You see, if we arrived here via determinism and chance, then our minds are also a product of determinism and chance. If that were so, then how could we ever find that out? Yet I must address the issue of morality which is, indeed, the very issue that started this discussion. Ed makes the argument that we are the ones who determine our moral direction, and not some divine being. He took issue with the way I stated that but the point, regardless of the “if, then” he added, is the same. The bottom-line is that Ed is stating that if there were no divine being then, as he put it, “we still MUST develop some sense of morality on our own.” At this point it is I who am laughing because, once again, Ed appeals to some higher principle that we all MUST answer to. It’s as if we all already know that we MUST act a certain way isn’t it? And this has been precisely my point from square one.