Response to Comments: The Problem With Miracles

Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say? Welcome to evolution.

Evolutionists say we must be limited to strictly natural explanations, and they then turn around and says they’ve figured out how all of life arose—by mutations and the like. They’re not exactly sure how those mutations could possibly produce the brain and everything else, but they are sure that’s how it happened. After all, we must limit ourselves to strictly natural explanations. Those explanations may not work very well, but they are all we have insist the evolutionists.

Of course this makes no sense, but when you point this out, as I did here, evolutionists just become even more sure of themselves. Here is what one evolutionist in the know said:

Cornelius -- please tell us your method for detecting/testing/refuting miracles, or else scientists have no reason to listen to you.

His point is that in science we just can’t deal with miracles. We can’t detect them, test for them, refute them, and so forth. So no matter what the evidence, evolutionists will forever continue to restrict their answer to naturalism. Show them a code, a machine or a molecular repair kit, it won’t matter.

No matter how badly evolution fares—most of its fundamental predictions have turned out false—evolutionists will always continue to insist it is a fact. This is not science, it is dogma.

In fact, if the evolutionist’s concern is simply that science can’t deal with miracles, then fine. Don’t deal with them. You can limit science to those problems where science works well, as Francis Bacon advocated. Or you can drop the “fact” claim, as did Rene Descartes.

But of course this isn’t the concern at all. We all know what is really going on here. We all know, because evolutionists have written and talked about this ad nauseam. The problem is not that they cannot discern any miracles—the problem is that they do not want to discern any miracles.

From theology (e.g., Christian Wolff), to philosophy (e.g., David Hume), to astronomy (e.g., Gottfried Leibniz), to geology (e.g., Charles Lyell) to biology (e.g., Charles Darwin), evolutionary thinkers have filled libraries with why there shouldn’t be any miracles.

Let’s admit it, science is done by people, and people have biases. Evolutionists pretend they have discovered an important new finding—the world just happened to happen, they proclaim.

Balderdash, people have been saying that ever since there were people. And the idea is contradicted today by high-tech science just as much as it was eons ago by simpler science. The idea is beyond ridiculous—it isn’t even wrong.

In fact, when evolutionists are not busy making their bogus warnings about miracles and claims about facts, they are hard at work attempting to refute the non strictly naturalistic Intelligent Design idea. Evolutionists know perfectly well how to deal with miracles when they think it suits their needs.

Let’s drop the game-playing, silly maneuvering and ridiculous truth claims, and instead deal honestly with the data.