But the fact that evolutionary science can only reckon with naturalistic explanations does not mean that only those explanations are true. This would be like an automobile mechanic claiming that jet aircraft cannot be real because, after all, he does not possess the knowledge or tools to work on them. Evolutionists say they lack the tools to test and evaluate theories that are not strictly naturalistic, but this does not mean such theories are necessarily false.
The irony here is that evolutionists make naturalism unscientific according to their own criterion of testability. This is because naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that are allowed. Imagine if the species were designed. What if the DNA code, the bat’s sonar system and the many other biological wonders were created by a miracle. If this were true, it would not be allowed within evolutionary science. Evolutionists would forever be trying to figure out how such marvels evolved. And they would continue to insist that evolution is a fact.
Of course evolutionists are not fooling anyone but themselves. When you hear an evolutionist claim that evolution is a fact you know there is an commitment to naturalism underwriting the claim.
But it doesn’t help to point out these problems to evolutionists, as I did here and here. They just dig themselves in deeper and deeper. One evolutionist in the know made this comment:
Why don’t you just explain, in simple language, why scientists should adopt your view (which is to insert miracles wherever you don’t understand something),
In simple language, that is not my view. Evolutionists make metaphysical arguments for why evolution is a fact, and when you point out their logical fallacies and scientific errors they blame you for introducing the metaphysics. It seems the evolutionist always blames you for what they do.
In fact I discussed two legitimate ways evolutionists can do science without sacrificing their commitment to naturalism. But as usual, the evolutionist rejects them for they strip away his metaphysics. It’s no fun following the rules if you can’t have your way. The evolutionist continues:
Oh, and please give us some method for including/excluding miracles in science. We're still waiting.
As I’ve already explained, it is not necessary to include/exclude miracles (using Rene Descartes approach, for example). The evolutionist continues:
Without that all you are giving us is meaningless complaining.
Meaningless complaining? Evolutionists violate scientific logic, you point it out, and its dismissed as meaningless complaining. As I pointed out here, the evolutionary claims are not scientific. Evolutionists can modify their approach and join science, or just blame the messenger and continue with their metaphysics.