Joe Carter has an excellent post on why you can’t be rational and support both naturalism and evolution.
Here’s how Joe open’s his post:
Richard Dawkins once wrote that it appears almost as if “the human brain is specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism.” Although his statement is bursting with irony, it appears to be lost on the typically clueless Dawkins. He appears not to realize that if the human brain is “designed” (he can’t help but sneak in teleological terms for non-teleological processes) by evolution then our brains would have no way to “understand” Darwinism.
Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Darwin understood what Dawkins is too blind to see: If naturalism is true, then we have no justification for science. Science is crushed under the radical skepticism that weighs down the naturalist (or would if they were more logical).
Go and read the whole thing.
