How Scientism Destroys Science

Introduction:  I have been interacting on and off with an anti-creationist detractor named "David" on this blog for some time and I think that his question below gets to the heart of the issue as it pertains to discussions and debates between atheistic Darwinists and young earth creationists. 

David,

You asked, "I really am curious if there is any evidence that you would accept as 'sinking' young earth creationism . . .?"

No, because the problem isn't facts, it's the philosophy of fact. What I'm about to write isn't meant to be derogatory, but you seem to be naively assuming that the "facts speak for themselves".  For example, when evolutionist Mary Schweitzer discovered red blood cells in T-rex soft-tissue, I knew that at least one of two things would happen: (1) evolutionists would deny that the samples were genuine erythrocytes and soft-tissue, and/or (2) some evolutionists would agree that it was a genuine find but would instead argue that soft tissue can be preserved in situ for 65 million years.  I was correct on both counts.  Of course, finding unfossilized dinosaurian soft tissue is perfectly consistent with young earth creationism (hereafter YEC), but given what I've been told by creation scientists, maintaining any soft-tissue integrity via the best cryogenic conditions isn't possible beyond 10,000 years.  Thus, creationists argue that the idea of biological tissue surviving for 65 million years in situ is preposterous.  Nevertheless, because evolutionary "faith" demands it, some evolutionists have dogmatically asserted otherwise, namely, that dinosaur soft-tissue can remain preserved and unfossilized for at least 65 million years.  So why aren't the creationists and evolutionists changing their mind but instead are sticking their ground?  Its because the facts don't speak for themselves.  All facts are pre-interpreted facts that are run through one's mental filter known as a worldview, which consists of a network of presuppositions that aren't testable through the procedures of natural science.  This mental filter determines what one will and will not accept as metaphysically possible.  As Augustine and others after him so eloquently put it, "I believe so that I may understand."  So it goes with YEC proponents, so it goes with the naturalist.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.   

Naturalism Undermines Cognitive Reliability

It gets worse because on naturalist lights, it is impossible to know whether anything is really true or not given the conjunction of Darwinian Evolution with Naturalism. Of course, your comments have always assumed that naturalism is true, that we are autonomous (vs. being dependent and accountable to God as His creatures), that we have the cognitive prowess within ourselves to figure out our problems on our own, without deferring to what skeptics would consider to be a mere imaginative philosophical crutch called "God".  However, you seem to be unaware that certain things about reality that you take for granted and use to undermine creationism couldn't be true if Darwinism and naturalism were true.  Quoting from naturalistic materialists, Darwin himself confessed,

With me, the horrid doubt always arises, whether the convictions of a man's mind, which have been developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Why would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind?

Physicalist atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland was consistent when she said this:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

 And so my questions for you are twofold:

1.  Given naturalism, evolutionary theory, and the conjunction between those two, what basis do you have to believe that your cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution? And to offer a follow-up question:

2.  If what you say is true, how can you can figure out your problems on your own since the very cognitive faculties you use to problem solve to answer my objections to atheism are called into question by the very process they supposedly arose from?

Naturalism is Metaphysically Contradictory and Self-Refuting

It appears that your underlying philosophical assumption for evaluating evidence is empiricism. But in the process of their argumentation, most empiricists are unaware that they annihilate empirical science itself, the very thing that they have put their "faith" in.  Science depends upon nonempirical ideas such as the uniformity of nature and the predictability of future events in order to function or teach us anything. But empirical verification must apply only to a particular time, place, and entity to be examined. I cannot empirically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow until I test the hypothesis tomorrow. But the past cannot be used to predict the future if no metaphysical truths are valid. Thus, science as we know it would then become impossible. Knowledge (science in this case) could mean no more than the reception of unrelated and there unintelligible sensations, bombarding the senses from the physical world.

Also, when you use logic and reason to suggest that YEC is invalid or contradicts "well-established facts", you are utilizing cognitive tools that are not themselves empirically verifiable. In other words, the laws, concepts, criteria, and propositions you appeal to to make your case are not themselves testable, demonstrable, or empirically proven. They are abstract, immaterial, and universal. Since when has anyone seen, smelled, or touched the law of non-contradiction? Thus, reasoning itself is destroyed as the human mind is reduced to a random collection of atoms and electrochemical events that we cannot assume is anything more than a statistical anomaly. We cannot even speak of the brain revealing a pattern if all knowledge is purely empirical. And then who is to say that the atomic event constituting my brain leading me to believe in Jesus Christ is any more or less "valid" than the atomic event of your brain leading you to put your "faith" in naturalistic materialism? Thus, the validity of any argument involves an appeal to various metaphysical (transcendental) criteria.

For instance, how do we know that to be an empiricist is valid? That is a metaphysical question. A material event accessible to the senses is neither valid nor invalid; it is just an event. This is why there are no such things as brute facts. All facts are interpreted facts.

In my experience of interacting with intelligent unbelievers, they correctly note that the creationist assumes the metaphysical propositions of the Bible before coming to the evidence. However, I have also noted that fellows like yourself rarely see that you are metaphysician too; just one of another kind. You too are a person of faith. You presuppose materialism by limiting the nature of existence without any warrant (empirical or otherwise) to do so. Consequently, you seek to disprove metaphysics by using your own metaphysic, and thus adhere to a self-referentially absurd worldview.

IN THE END, a person holding this view of reality has undermined the very possibility of any knowledge whatsoever, whereas Biblical Christian theism provides us with the philosophical grounding for knowledge (scientific or otherwise), logic, and the intelligibility of human experience.