Naturalism: The Unexplored Assumption

At its very basis, the controversy over evolution is about metaphysics--worldviews, philosophies, religions, ways of explaining reality. Contemporary western science is steeped in naturalism to the point where it is the very water in which most scientists swim. It is their natural environment. Do they even recognize this? Does a fish even know it's wet?

The goal of this perspective is the best naturalistic explanation possible. We have seen in previous discussions how evolutionary biologists cling to Darwinism because from their point of view there is no acceptable alternative. One model of science insists that one has to have a better theory in order to discard the previous paradigm. And since no naturalistic alternative to Darwinism as come along the theory stands.

This raises a good question: Is Darwinian evolution true, not just "good science?" According to Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, "The only way that any sort of science can proceed is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to see how far one can get with this assumption." That is methodological naturalism, usually insisted upon as the very foundation of the scientific method; otherwise, it is claimed, we can imagine all sorts of alternative explanations for natural processes including magic and "God did it." But this approach begs the question by defining science as that which seeks only naturalistic explanations for reality. If one does not accept the assumption of naturalism, it is reasonable to ask not just whether a particular explanation is "good science" but whether it is actually true. The materialistic naturalist assumes that these are the same thing. Is that a valid assumption? Do the vast majority of evolutionary biologists even ask that greater question?