Creation and evolution are each representative of a broad epistemology. Framing the issue of the origins and diversity of life as a contest or debate between creation and evolution disguises the point. The real issue is whether a naturalistic epistemology or a supernaturalistic epistemology is correct.

Evolution is a theory that is part of a naturalistic epistemology. Its knowledge is natural. It owes its existence (like every successful scientific theory) to a single virtue: it is the best explanation of nature. Nature imposes itself on it, and it unites and simplifies natural evidence. Accepting (or rejecting) a naturalistic theory requires only empirical observation and analysis — evidence that can be accepted on its own merits. Therefore, naturalistic theories are persuasive on their own merits. They use known data to explain unknown processes. In other words, naturalistic theories attempt to explain the unknown by the known.

Creation is a theory that is part of a supernaturalistic epistemology. Its knowledge transcends nature. Its knowledge is not obtained from the natural world. It is imposed on nature, thus making it more complicated. Accepting it requires faith because there is not any evidence that makes it persuasive. Only natural evidence does not require faith and can be accepted on its own merits. Therefore, supernaturalistic theories are not persuasive on their own merits. Nor can they be fully understood. In other words, supernaturalistic theories attempt to explain the unknown by the unknowable.

The issue is not which theory is superior. The issue is which epistemology is superior. To decide, we must use reason. “Reason is not one tool of thought among many, it is the entire toolbox.” Reason supports only a naturalistic epistemology. Simply because it is not a naturalistic theory, creation must be rejected.

Link

Related Comments (1)