The naturalistic fallacy is assuming that because something is a certain way, there’s a divine or inherent order which says that’s the right way to do things.
Obviously, it’s retarded; idiots on the left use it to argue against anyone who says “the natural way is to…” in any argument. What it really combats however is the inertia that says, welp, things turned out that way, so it must be right.
Here’s a good attack on it as well:
A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.
“The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse,” he said.
“Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world”.
Ayala’s kind of an idiot in that he assumes that precludes intelligence behind the design of our natural world, including natural selection. The most perfect system may be an imperfect system, because then, as Thomas Pynchon reminds us, it may not fall into a state of entropy derived through equality of all possible options.
Our world is perfect because it is imperfect, because that imperfection enables it to be an ongoing cycle and not a static state that will rapidly decay. Good and evil are both necessary for life, but that doesn’t mean (if you want to survive) that you stop fighting evil for one goddamned minute.
A Vatican cardinal said Tuesday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as “absurd” the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.
“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said.
He said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.
He’s right. It is absurd. Evolution is a mechanism, not a cause. What is the cause? Well, science cannot tell us yet. So atheism is an untenable position (the idea that you can linearly “prove” a prismatic order is in itself ludicrous, but most outspoken atheists are angry, destructive loudmouths). Agnosticism, sure. Religion? Those religions that claim God is the world don’t seem to bother me. In fact, I think we’d all do better if we believed in something larger than ourselves, and for best results, something wholly abstract and unprovable.