Prophet Izaach wrote:In the context outside naturalism, that is a good solution between the conflict of creationism and evolution. However, within the context of naturalism, these words come up: empirical evidence.
Let us also not forget that the formation of self-replicating machines (that can start evolution) can be explained by hypotheses that are currently being tested and studied. As far as I know, none of them are conclusive yet but they provide better explanations than "God did it".
Greetings
Prophet Izaach,
Your hope that naturalism can provide better explanations than "God did it" is only possible if one is highly selective of the evidence viewed.
Do you have a link to empirical evidence (proof, not involving theory) showing how cross species evolution happened?
Philosophical Naturalism can be defined as "there ain't no god, no-way, no-shape, no-how" so any teleological, design based, anthropomorphic-quasi-natural explanations would (naturally) be prohibited.
Terms like "empirical evidence" are certainly easy to bandy about, anyone can claim possession of such things but... if I were to allege that creationists had discovered empirical evidence of the existence of God you could reasonably reply
"YouTube or it didn't happen." If you choose to reply to my challenge kindly provide any empirical evidence that can withstand the rigorous examination you would bring to bear.
~Granps