In part 1 (1), I discussed how the assertion "I can sufficiently explain Evolution without appealing to a God, so God must not be necessary" is a statement which has no force at all; I did this by attacking premise 2. I concluded that this atheistic argument underlying their assertion is unsound (2) - but this underlying-atheistic argument has yet another defect. Let's look again at the underlying argument of atheists who use that force-less statement:
If you can sufficiently explain (x) without appealing to (y), then (y) is not necessary for (x).
If something (y) is not necessary for (x), then (y) does not exist.
Evolution (x) is a given.
I can sufficiently explain Evolution (x) without appealing to a God (y)
Therefore, God (y) is not necessary.
Therefore, God (y) does not exist.
I will refuse to attack the 3rd premise, even though I believe the premise is open for attack. I will, however, attack the 4th premise. In Part 1, I argued that there is no reason to accept premise 2, and absolutely no reason to make the jump from premise 5 to the conclusion. In this post, I'm arguing that evolution cannot be sufficiently explained, therefore, the 4th premise is false.
Evolution has yet to be sufficiently explained. Fodar and
Piattelli-Palmarini, in their book, "What Darwin Got Wrong" (3) attacked the
idea of natural selection. Importantly, these authors believe God does not exist; the authors believe evolution happens, but they do
not believe Natural Selection is the process by which it happens. Without natural selection, evolution is left unexplained. Also, about 1,000 scientists have signed a statement that says, basically, that they are skeptical of natural selection being able to account for life's complexity (4).
Evolution has yet to be sufficiently explained. And so the
statement, "I can explain evolution
sufficiently, without any necessity of appealing to a Creator" is
false. You cannot explain evolution sufficiently without appealing to a
Creator, because you cannot sufficiently explain evolution, period.
Premise 2 is false and premise 4 is false. Or at least premise 2 is definitely false, and there is good reason to doubt premise 4; therefore, there is no reason to accept the conclusion. If the conclusion were true, then the truth of the conclusion would have absolutely nothing to do with this atheistic argument. And if an atheist says that their assertion does not have an underlying argument behind it that resembles the one I've provided, then that atheist has just saved us all the trouble by admitting his assertion is pointless.
Perhaps the atheist can weaken the argument by changing his conclusion to "Therefore, God most probably does not exist." However, I don't see it coming out any better. Why? Because with the definitive denial of premise 2, along with premise 4 being most likely false, the whole argument will break down no matter what the conclusion is.
1. Explaining Evolution Without Appealing to a Creator God (Part 1)
2. Validity and Soundness
3. What Darwin Got Wrong
4. Dissent From Darwin