Evolution excludes the existence of a creator
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
Evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there.
Source
- Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 37
Responses
- Evolution, indeed all science, functions on the principle of methodological naturalism. This principle states briefly that natural causes are the only things that can be objectively identified. As a result, science functions on the principle that science itself is incapable of elucidating a supernatural cause.
- Many creationists conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism states that the natural universe is all that exists, and this position does exclude the possibility of a creator. However, methodological naturalism does not exclude the possibility of a creator, nor does acceptance of evolution require disbelief in a creator. Indeed, there are a great many theistic evolutionists and the Clergy Letter Project shows that at least 7000 clergy see no conflict between evolution and faith.
- No Ockham's Razor excludes the existence of a creator. It dictates that invoking a creator in order to explain a natural process is an unnecessary step, and therefore is irrelevant. This does not mean that a creator does not exist. It means that the internal dynamics of the universe do not depend on the creator's continual intervention. This doesn't even exclude the creator's continual intervention, it just states that the internal dynamics of the universe do not depend upon it!
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Reification (evolution, as a theory, does not have anything personal against creationism)
- Wrong Direction of Cause and Effect (evolution did not start with the desire to eliminate a creator; it was a result)
- Appeal to Consequences (a creator is seen as inherently good)
- Argument from Design (necessity of a creator seen as obvious)
