The fallacy of Naturalism

I've just finished watching a couple videos (on the general topic of creation) by John Byl. He's one of my favorite creationist writers and speakers. I want to comment briefly on the videos, and encourage you to watch them.

Quotes and comments;

1. The videos in question are available online (for free or for sale) at Northwest Creation Network. The first is Cosmology; explaining the universe; and the second is War of the worldviews; Christianity vs Naturalism [1.]

2. War of the worldviews
- I'll provide some quotes by Byl (and others) and make a few comments.

- It's interesting that that great favorite of atheists Nietzsche said that science has killed god... but he also said science has killed truth.

- Abraham Kuyper said it's not a matter of faith vs science, but of two (opposing) scientific systems... each having its own faith.

- 'The origins debate is not about facts, but about their proper interpretation.'

- 'It's not science vs Christianity, but naturalistic explanations vs christian explanations.'

- 'A worldview (to be respectable) ought to be livable.' (This is something materialism is not.

- "Free will simply doesn't not exist, evolution cannot produce a being that is truly able to make choices." - William Provine
I'm tempted to agree with that. I don't think 'evolution' could produce such a being. I see this as evidence for creation.

Notice that Provine says free will simply does not exist. Simply? Well, let's leave that aside. You see where a consistent materialism gets you; it paints you into a corner called absurdity. Does anyone think prof. Provine doesn't think he has any free choice? Did he have no choice but to make that statement? We might wonder why other humans, being mere matter in motion, make the opposite statement.

If human beings have no free will, why are atheists continually attacking people for holding to superstitous beliefs? ie. if they have no free will what good will it do to harangue them, and to challenge them to change? This makes no sense to me. (This means that fellows like Provine and Dawkins shouldn't pride themselves on being progressive, fearless, etc. as they had no choice in what they've done.)

If we have no free will how do we know any statement is true? ie. we're no free to agree or disagree with X, and our conclusions about it are beyond our control. They aren't true or false; they just are.

"The universe cares nothing for us,'' says Provine.

- I agree. Inert matter can't care about anything or anyone. According to the Bible, it's God who cares. (If the universe were mere matter in motion there could not be caring of any kind... and one wonders why Provine has such a word in his vocabulary, and why he employs it. I suppose devising a grammar consistent with materialism would be impossible)

The materialist claims that only natural causes exist. One wonders how he knows a cause is natural or not. (Maybe causes only appear to be natural.) There is no way I know of to prove causes are natural. (ie. not created) There is no way to prove the universe (and all in it) weren't created.

According to Roger Penrose (Shadows of the Mind) there are three worlds (and three mysteries). There's the word of matter; the world of ideas; the world of absolute truth (which he apparently equates with mathematics?). The mystery or mysteries, is how we get from one world to the other.

''Given our best scientific theories, factors beyond our control produce all our actions, we are not therefore morally responsible for them." - Derk Pereboom (Living without free will)

- How can he possibly know this? If there is no free will, there is no freedom when it comes to reasoning... therefore we can't possibly know if a statement is true or false. One wonders why the word moral is in his vocabulary. (If no one is responsible why do some people get tenure?) Given his own wview, his claim is meaningless.

If there is no free will, how does he know which theories are the best? He has no choice in his decision... therefore he's not making a choice between alternatives.

"We are machines made by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are for. It is every living object's sole reason for living." - Dawkins/1994

- This must surely be one of the stupidest statements ever made. How this sad raver can be so popular is beyond me. I can only explain it by thinking people so love the Christian bashing he does that they forgive or forget radical statements such as this. He has no right to speak of humans as machines; as machines are made by intelligent agents. Purpose? There can be no purpose in the hell of a u. he postulates.
Exactly? What a farce. Apparently this fool thinks his wild speculations have the same validity as mathematics. This is what we are for he says. This is gibberish; there is no teleology in his crackpot universe.... nor can there be. Reason for living? There could be no reason for living in the pulp fiction universe he writes about.

'According to the Westminster Confession; the purpose of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.'

Notes;
1. Northwest Creation Network - videos
2. It's interesting to me that people like Peter Atkins like to attack theism... but say virtually nothing about the post modernists. They like to pretend their fellow tenured elite don't even exist... as if they haven't made any arguments against this positivist idea that 'science' provides us with absolute truth.