A critical look at a common argument made by atheists, specifically regarding appeals to science. What does atheism and naturalism have to say about time?

desert2

In Part 3, we interrogated Genealogical Continuity (GC) in order to uncover its metaphysical underpinnings. We determined that GC is not falsifiable. Nothing in the fossil record or historical records more generally could be interpreted by scientists as evidence of a miraculous event such as the “creation of man.” This is because it is axiomatic

desert1

In Part 2, we discussed falsifiability as a primary characteristic distinguishing science from metaphysics. The question, now, is whether we should understand Genealogical Continuity (GC), i.e., common descent, as falsifiable and, hence, scientific. The best way to see how GC is not falsifiable and, hence, is metaphysical is to consider what empirical state of affairs

5157809799_08d31df86e_b

In Part 1, we discussed how the theory of common descent and Genealogical Continuity (GC) originated well before the advent of science as we know it. Admittedly, the fact that GC predates science does not by itself establish that GC is metaphysical and a-scientific. However, the following considerations prove just that. Popperian Falsifiability First of

5187370757_6032215c95_b

Opponents of Creationism often argue that Creationism is pure metaphysical dogma whereas the evolutionary account of the origins of species is based on scientific fact. This charge against Creationism, however, obscures important distinctions. As we discussed in this post, Evolution is composed of two separate theories: Genealogical Continuity (GC) and Natural Selection (NS). GC is

TOP