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

It seems clear that someone with a naturalistic philosophy could deny evolution by denying well-established scientific facts just as a believer in the supernatural can deny evolution by denying well-established scientific facts.You cite the Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But evidently a mere rejection of the supernatural does not logically compel anyone to believe in either of these concepts. Evidence does, philosophy doesn't.And you allow two options to supernaturalists --- but only by allowing them to deny equally well-established scientific facts, such as that evolution has occurred.

To expand on this point. A philosophical naturalist could deny the Big Bang by copying some (though not all) of the creationist arguments against the Big Bang.He could deny the Second Law of Thermodynamics by producing an equally dumb argument against the 2LoT. Here's one which I've seen seriously put forward (I'll tell you why it's dumb later, if you're interested): And he can then convince himself against evolution by borrowing creationist arguments against evolution. Though he'd have to change some of the terms, such as "created kinds".He can then picture an eternal and uncreated universe in which species are static and there has been an eternal cycle of chicken and egg. And if he was convinced by his own arguments, he could cheerfully believe that he was being scientific in so doing.(I think I'm right in saying that some Greek philosophers, ignorant of the Big Bang, the 2LoT, and evolution, did in fact envisage such a static eternal cosmos.)Now, as slevesque points out, no-one actually believes this nowadays: But, as I think that I have demonstrated, this is not because philosophical naturalism compels a belief in evolution.It is simply because the facts are for evolution, and no philosophical naturalist has any compelling motivation to deny this, any more than to deny that the Earth is a spheroid and orbits the Sun. A philosophical naturalist could in principle hoodwink himself in this way --- but only a religious fundamentalist needs to.

That's what slevesque said. He is distinguishing between evolution on the one hand, and the mechanism (neo-Darwinian evolution) on the other. I think his sentence structure has confused you, but if you go back and read what he wrote, it's clear enough what he means. Again, you misunderstand slevesque's point. What he's suggesting is that a philosophical naturalist would be compelled to infer that evolution had happened. But (says slevesque) he would not be equally compelled to infer that the mechanism of that evolution was neo-Darwinian --- he might, for example, be a Lamarckist, as indeed many people were before the discovery of genetics.

But it would be quite in order for a philosophical naturalist to reject something which he thought wasn't a law of nature.Like other posters on this thread, you seem to be conflating the philosophical position of naturalism with acceptance of the discoveries of science. But, as I have pointed out, the one does not imply the other. A materialist always has the option of rejecting scientists' description of the material world. It's just that only rarely will a materialist exercise this option.But it is possible. For example, it is one of the little ironies of the creationist movement that many of their best-loved arguments against science are taken from the staunch atheist and whackjob Fred Hoyle. This is fairly typical of the creationist confusion over the meanings of "law" and "theory". However, it would be off-topic to go into this further here --- perhaps you would like to take it up in my recent thread on "The Scientific Method For Beginners".

Well, this conflates two questions.Given the evidence, I think it vanishingly unlikely that there is a static universe which has always had static species.On the other hand, it is perfectly possible for a hypothetical person constrained only by the philosophy of naturalism, and not by my understanding of the evidence, to come to exactly the opposite conclusion.I think I'll see if I can find out who those Greek philosophers were who advocated that view. I think there is an alternative, which is to disbelieve in evolution but to believe in the spontaneous generation of higher species, such as aardvarks. Again, you have to add constraints of scientific knowledge to the beliefs of your philosophical naturalist which he could not derive simply from his philosophy.---It is worth noting that in fact the theory of evolution was not derived from a naturalistic philosophy plus such scientific knowledge as you mentioned in your OP. Darwin and Wallace were not philosophical naturalists, nor, of course, did they know about the Big Bang, and the 2LoT was published (IIRC) six years after the Origin of Species.

I should say that I too don't see what Jon's post is getting at. Apparently he has an opinion, but figuring out what it is is left as an exercise for the reader.

You took "naturalist" to mean "one who accepts evolution", to the extent of categorizing the Catholic Church as naturalists.But this is not what it means. A philosophical naturalist would be someone who rejects the supernatural a priori, which the Catholic Church does not.Any ambiguity of terms here is much more your fault than his.Moreover, your post was irrelevant. Slevesque argues (incorrectly) that a naturalist must accept evolution. One can counter this by instancing naturalists who don't or didn't, but not by instancing theists who do.

This would still not include the Catholic Church (who would tell you that the Universe is a natural thing with a supernatural cause).

What Chesterton neglects to mention is that this "doctrine" is the best-evidenced statement in the Universe. Nope. It doesn't contradict the known laws of nature, and so by your own definition is not a miracle.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That the laws of nature are not violated.For example, all the observations I've ever made confirm the consistent operation of the law of gravity. One can't have better evidence than this. Therefore, if someone tells me that a friend of his has an uncle who saw an Indian guru levitate --- well, this is evidence too, of a rather lower quality. And if I weigh one set of evidence against the other, I find that the probability is that the guru did not levitate.How too too doctrinaire of me. I'm hoping that that was a joke.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To believe in a miracle, one would need stronger evidence for that miracle than for the law that it violates. To believe that a guru levitated by the power of his mind, I would need stronger evidence for that proposition than I have for the consistent operation of the law of gravity.Now my point is that I do have evidence for the latter. If I doubt the story about the experience of my friend's friend's uncle, this is not, as Chesterton claims, a conflict of evidence with doctrine, but of evidence with much better evidence.And you yourself, I believe, would follow this rule. Even believing, as you do, in the possibility of miracles, how much consideration would you give my claim if I were to tell you that I had just levitated? Even supposing in principle that the laws of nature could be supervened, that's still never the way to bet, is it? Blimey, you weren't joking.It would violate that law if, and only if, the supposed tumor vanished by virtue of the atoms that constituted it being annihilated.But there are lots of other ways for things to vanish. Ou sont les neiges d'antan? Did they violate the law of conservation of energy? And what you "know" is wrong. Why should I doubt your story? What I doubt is your grasp on physics.

Then you have jumped to a very strange conclusion. And one that is based on not a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence ... proving once more that Chesterton was wrong.

Spontaneous remission isn't that rare.The only surprising thing here is the stuff slevesque's made up, i.e. the cancer disappearing as a result of its constituent atoms being annihilated.

No, it would be a hypothesis.I'll add an explanation of the concepts of law and theory in this thread.In the meantime, you might want to read this.

But the point at issue is not whether it happened but how it happened.Spontaneous remission does happen, and I've never seen any evidence that would lead me to attribute it to supernatural causes (evidence such as it only happening to particularly devout and saintly Christians, for example.)On the contrary, what we know about this phenomenon suggests that it is something that the body does itself. Here is an interesting article on spontaneous remission. Amongst the facts in the article is this: Now, if spontaneous remission is to be attributed to God doing a miracle, why should this miracle so often be preceded by an acute infectious disease stimulating the immune system?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.