I don’t want to derail this thread, so I’ll just say that I have some logic problems with that paragraph. My hunch is that @Patrick does also.
You might want to make this post its own thread topic—if that is of interest to you.
I like some of Matt Slick’s writings but he gets himself into deep doodoo at times when he pontificates on science and philosophy topics for which he has insufficient training. This “Naturalism is self-refuting.” article is a good example. I’ll just mention a few problems:
"Naturalism is the position that nature is all there is, and there is no supernatural realm. It says that all of human experience can be described and understood through natural laws, science, and human reason. It asserts that biological evolution is true and that there are no supernatural realities."1
I wondered how his footnoted source could be so amateurish and flawed—but then I quickly discovered that he is citing the CARM dictionary of terms, which Slick himself wrote!
Among other problems: No, naturalism does NOT assert that “biological evolution is true.” The methodological naturalism of science (or whatever alternative term someone may prefer for that) provides compelling evidence and analysis which leads us to assert that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. Moreover, one doesn’t have to be a strict materialist to affirm that biological evolution theory is valid science and has valuable explanatory powers. (It sounds like Slick couldn’t resist adding an anti-evolution jab to his amateur definition of naturalism.)
It asserts that biological evolution is true and that there are no supernatural realities.
That sentence also implies a false linkage: that biological evolution and “no supernatural realities” are somehow bound together.
I’ll cut my tangent short and not try to catalog all of the logic fallacies of the CARM article but I wonder if Slick has ever run it by a Christian philosophy professor at one of the leading evangelical graduate schools.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate that Dale brought that CARM article to my attention.
POSTSCRIPT: @DaleCutler , your “Timely RV” essay misrepresents the differences between Endura™ and Restasis™. The latter is not simply a high-priced substitution. Endura is a traditional OTC lubricating eye drop, little different from countless other brands. Restasis is a prescription medication which uses Cyclosporine to encourage the body to produce more tears. (Yes, Cyclosporine sounds familiar because that is the very expensive drug which is used to prevent organ rejection in transplant patients.) To claim that Endura and Restasis are at all comparable is factually incorrect. Ask your pharmacist if this is unclear.
My Co-instants Log entry for the date shown:
And since you’re a statistician, give us your input, too. 
). Can you factor in the particular person aspect?: