Naturalistic evolutionism cannot be rationally affirmed

I will give two evidences against Naturalistic evolution; as a result, its assertion should be rendered implausible and irrational to hold to be true. #1: Naturalistic Evolution is self-defeating The central contention that I will propose is that the concept of naturalistic evolution is inherently self-contradictory and is a defeater for itself. First, let's outline a basic belief of the naturalistic evolutionist - that all life on earth developed characteristics via natural processes over a period of time. If this is true, then all aspects of life on earth are adaptive - limbs, senses, organs etc. all came about through natural sub-processes,"arising because they were beneficial to the greater causes of survival and reproduction. The same must also therefore be true of the behaviour and neurology of such life. If all aspects of life are concerned with adaptive processes for survival purposes, then the behaviour and neurology must also be concerned with adaptive behaviour for survival. The next step is noticing that the underlying neurology is in direct causal relation to all beliefs that arise from life that come from such processes. As a result, beliefs too are for both adaptive and survival purposes. However, notice that truth is not a part of such beliefs. Truth is not a binding force for survival; there is no objective standard for truth - provided survival is guaranteed, the objective truth of a notion is an irrelevance. To give an analogy: It could be that there exists a belief that grizzly bears are friendly, and the way to hug them is to run away from them. In such a case, the belief is apparently false, but it causes fitness and survival - but truth is not essential. There is no guarentee of the truth value of any particular belief. This notion is therefore true for all of the beliefs and viewpoints that arise from adaptive life. Consequences What does this mean? Well, it means that if naturalistic evolution is correct, then all beliefs that human beings possess are merely for survival and reproductive purposes and not for truth or reason. But here's the thing - the view that naturalistic evolution is true is in itself a belief and as a result, if the worldview is correct, then the belief in naturalistic evolution cannot itself be trusted. As such, upon it's own assertion, it undermines itself. The very cognitive faculties that are said to come about by the evolutionary process cannot be trusted - they are not based on truth, nor reason, but for survival and reproduction. As a result, any belief or viewpoint arising from such neurology cannot be trusted. It is a defeater for itself. [1] #2: Evidence to the contrary Here, I'll present an argument that refutes the naturalistic aspect of naturalistic evolutionism. It goes as follows: P1) If there are unintelligent beings that possess telos, then they must be guided by intelligence P2) There exists unintelligent beings that possess telos P3) Therefore there exists a guiding intelligence With 'telos' being the end or goal by which a being operates, and an 'unintelligent being' defined as an entity which lacks knowledge and consciousness. Defence of P1 This can be stated as such: "every unconscious teleology, every case of something being for something without awareness of what it"s for, is dependent on some conscious teleology, on some mind which is aware what that thing is for" [2] The reasoning behind this claim is that to act towards an end - to possess telos - requires both knowledge concerning the end, and also intention to move towards the end. This is because to act for a purpose requires knowledge of that purpose. An entity cannot act towards a purpose if it does not know about the purpose itself, as it cannot act in the certain way required in order to achieve it. However, an unintelligent entity has neither knowledge nor intention, and as such cannot, by itself, act towards an end through its own means. Consequently, if it does act towards such an end, then it must be guided towards it by an entity that possesses knowledge about about the purpose - there is no other way in which it can occur. This must, by definition, be an intelligent being, considering that there is knowledge involved. " Defence of P2 It is fairly obvious that some things in this world display telos. As a matter of fact, a great deal - a substantive majority, in fact, of earthly entities possess such features. Merely in terms of the human body, there are numerous examples. From the heart pumping blood in order to provide oxygen to the body, to the brain making thoughts in order to give human rationality, there is an obvious, discernible final cause present in nature. "Indeed, medicine as a science relies on teleology in our bodies; to cure a diseased liver, for instance, rests on the assumption that the diseased organ is not fulfilling its purpose; it implies that the liver has a purpose that it is not fulfilling, that needs to in turn be fulfilled. We humans have a properly basic belief that there exists telos in nature, and by simple evidentialism, we can isolate phenomena that exhibit telos in their activities. These entities that possess telos, like the human heart, are not intelligent or conscious in any way, yet show movement towards an end. We also need not use organic examples - for example, inorganic processes such as the rock cycle exhibit very similar teleology in their operation. [3] Defence of P3 If the first two premises are correct, then the conclusion necessarily follows. What we are left with is a demiurge type being, which is the intelligent guider of natural processes that by definition refutes the naturalistic claim that no such being exists, and especially concerning the view that evolution was guided by natural processes; if the argument is correct, then evolution - an inorganic process - was guided by intelligence. So, I have provided two pieces of evidence that Naturalistic Evolution is an irrational belieff to affirm - one concerning it's self defeating nature, and one concerning contrary evidence. Thanks Con, I hand the debate over to you. Sources: [1] . http://www.bethinking.org... [2] . http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk... [3] . http://payingattentiontothesky.com...