Naturalist viewpoint correctly depicted?

[Jhayward]

Do you think the naturalist viewpoint is fairly depicted in this statement of predictions by Reasons To Believe scientists?  If not, what do you think is off?
http://www.reasons.org/files/Predictions_ver1.pdf




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Solitary]

I personally pick Naturalism.  Solitary

[Mermaid]

Theistic Evolution:

[Solitary]

  Solitary

[Jason78]

Reasons To Believe sound like a bunch of folks that have accepted science as a valid model, but still really really really want to believe in jesus for some reason.

[Munch]

Reasons To Believe sound like a bunch of folks that have accepted science as a valid model, but still really really really want to believe in jesus for some reason.

That's the scope of the human mind. A child learns to crawl before it can learn to walk, and even when it does learn to walk, it still gets down on its hands and knees to crawl because it's less struggle

[TomFoolery]

Reasons to believe seems to largely stand on the Rare Earth hypothesis, and not only exudes circular logic, but also seems unimaginative.

[Mike Cl]

Reasons to believe seems to largely stand on the Rare Earth hypothesis, and not only exudes circular logic, but also seems unimaginative.

Most theists imagination seems to stop at their own fairy tale that they believe in.  For them, all other fairy tales are rubbish.

[stromboli]

http://www.reasons.org/

Where faith and science converge........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_To_Believe

Reasons To Believe is a progressive creationist ministry that promotes day-age forms of old Earth creationism. It was founded in 1986 by Hugh Ross, a Canadian-born astrophysicist and creationist Christian apologist.[4] Based in Los Angeles, the mission of Reasons To Believe is to demonstrate that "sound reason and scientific researchâ€"including the very latest discoveriesâ€"consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature."

Reasons To Believe has 26 books published and over 1564 articles written. Reasons To Believe has held events all over the world.[5] Reasons To Believe has also produced many DVDs, TV shows, audio CDs, MP3s, podcasts, streaming events and teleconferences. "Science News Flash" reviews news headline of scientific discoveries. Reasons To Believe educational programs includes both credit classes and non credit classes.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-03-04/

Ross and his RTB associates are fond of the hypothesis of the fine-tuning of the universe, which is the modern-day resurrection of the design argument, which goes something like this:

If things had been different, then things would be different.
If the physical constants of the universe had been different at the Big Bang, then we wouldn’t have life, especially human life, today.
The physical constants could have been different and all their exact values are, individually and taken together, extremely improbable.
Therefore, God exists because somebody was required to select those exact values of the constants for the purpose of getting humans later on.

Reason To Believe is a recycled fine tuning argument.

"sound reason and scientific researchâ€"including the very latest discoveriesâ€"consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature."

Took me all of 10 minutes to discount this. To start with "confidence in the truth of the bible" is such a flawed argument you need look no further. The bible is a mixture of hodge podge from numerous and unknown sources. RTB is a Creationist group and nothing more.

[SGOS]

If things had been different, then things would be different.
If the physical constants of the universe had been different at the Big Bang, then we wouldn’t have life, especially human life, today.
The physical constants could have been different and all their exact values are, individually and taken together, extremely improbable.
Therefore, God exists because somebody was required to select those exact values of the constants for the purpose of getting humans later on.

Or if you like statistics:

I had the most amazing thing happen today.  I saw a license plate number 739JR241.  Can you imagine how big a miracle that is?  Out of all the license plate numbers, what are the chances of seeing that exact number?

[stromboli]

Lol. Random chance? God! The fine tuning argument is one of the silliest imo. To me its like taking a bunch of marbles and rolling them around in a tray, and if/when they line up in a certain order- which they will do eventually- you point and say- "see? God!"

[TomFoolery]

If things had been different, then things would be different.
If the physical constants of the universe had been different at the Big Bang, then we wouldn’t have life, especially human life, today.
The physical constants could have been different and all their exact values are, individually and taken together, extremely improbable.
Therefore, God exists because somebody was required to select those exact values of the constants for the purpose of getting humans later on.

The fact that humans exist and have the intelligence to observe the sheer enormity of our universe and implications of our existence doesn't prove God exists. It proves that humans have imagination and conceptual thought.

Furthermore, it suggests that we're the pinnacle of creation, and it doesn't get any better than this. All those billions of years, God was working toward... us? So we could ask him where we came from and why?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Wait..isn't Reasons to believe a Rod Stewart song? Well singularly anyway..
https://youtu.be/XJylcQ7CGfI