I wrote this entire reply to an article written at the intellectual conservative website, and for some reason, it didn’t post. I will keep trying to post it, and for the time being, I will post it here for safe keeping.
You can read the entire exchange, (which is quite lengthy) here:
The discussion is about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, (a title that disgusts me.)
While reading through this entire thing, I noticed a fellow presuppositionalist, Mr. Alan Roebuck, and I so greatly appreciated his posts, that I wanted to post something myself to let him know how much I enjoyed them. Then, I ended up preaching a little myself.
Here is the result:
I am inclined to downplay the frustration I feel when reading the majority of the posts in this discussion so far due to the well reasoned and completely unanswered objections of Mr. Alan Roebuck.
True, Mr. Burnett attempts a response (88); however in the end he does nothing more than begs the very important question that Mr. Roebuck posed.
Another individual, Mr(Ms.?) Wiggy articulates what may be a knee jerk response to the arguments raised, and I feel certain that had others in this thread bothered with reading Alan’s posts, they would probably respond in similar fashion (which would subject their replies to the same savage criticism of Wiggy’s position that Alan demonstrated in post 53.)
Indeed the only way for the supporters of a naturalistic metaphysical view of reality (and any theories derived from that foundation, including evolution) to avoid these self refuting contradictions, is by giving up their naturalism.
Such is the true metaphysical nature of this debate, and seeing Alan’s post which recognized this, was like a fresh gust of wind in a chicken house. For those opposing the Evolutionary theory, (in any of its forms) to accept at the outset of the discussion the philosophical premises of your opponent is not only inconsistent philosophy, it is potentially dishonorable before God almighty whom you (presumably) are attempting to defend, (even if such a nasty little secret has yet to be acknowledged.)
Given the truth of naturalism, I would be inclined to agree with the arguments against ID so far presented, and in that case, I say that positing a “God of the Gaps” argument, would indeed be fallacious and unnecessary. However, we have yet to see any arguments in favor of the truth of any form of naturalistic worldview; it has so far just been arbitrarily assumed.
I as a Christian would propose that any naturalistic metaphysical theory ultimately invalidates itself, and therefore, any conclusions based on such a theory (like the popular form of evolution being discussed) would also ultimately be invalid. If I am right in that proposition, then evolution is only valid as far as it accepts the non contradictory philosophical premises posited in the Christian worldview. (Not that I am claiming any form of theistic evolution is compatible with Biblical text, as many books can show to be impossible, merely that whatever degree of philosophical “soundness” evolution does hold, depends on the degree of conformity with the Christian worldview.)
Would anyone like to respond to my proposition, or the far better articulated posts of Mr. Roebuck?