The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (5 page)

One of the reasons why evolution is so "all-pervading" today
is that the philosophy of naturalism is all-pervading. We now
turn our attention to this issue.

Naturalism is a system of thought that espouses the idea that
all phenomena in the universe can be explained wholly in terms
of natural causes and laws.' Nature is the "whole show." No
supernatural being intervenes in the natural world. Naturalists
reject miracles outright.

The late famous scientist Carl Sagan, in his popular PBS
television show Cosmos, said that "the cosmos is all that is or
ever was or ever will be." More than one scholar has noted that
Sagan's comment seems to be a purposeful substitution for the
"Gloria Patri": "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to
the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever
shall be, world without end."2

Of course, Sagan did not believe in the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost. He did not believe in the existence of a
Creator. To him, the universe was infinitely old and self-existing.
The universe alone gave birth to life on this planet. We are literally children of the cosmos.

Historically, in the early seventeenth century, Rene Descartes
propagated the idea that the universe was a purely mechanical
system. And because it was a purely mechanical system, it could be studied and measured. When Newtonian physics came on
the scene some years later, naturalism swung into the mainstream. Scholar Del Ratzsch explains:

Many of Newton's followers interpreted both
Newton and Newtonian physics as implying (1) that
nothing was truly scientific except empirical observation and what could be logically supported by those
observations, and (2) that (as Descartes had argued)
nature was nothing but a vast, self-regulating physical machine. Although Newton himself held neither
of those positions, they were nonetheless widely
believed to have the authority of both Newton and his
science behind them 3

So, instead of believing in a transcendent Creator who
brought the physical universe into being, naturalism teaches that
the world of nature is a closed system of purely material causes
and effects. This natural world cannot be influenced by anything
outside the natural world-like God.

Today naturalism is still with us and is seemingly allpervasive. One scholar commented that naturalism is the "air
we breathe. It pervades our cultural atmosphere."4 Naturalism
virtually rules the academic world. Its presence is oppressively
felt in public schools, colleges, and universities across the country. Naturalism has been called "the default position for all serious inquiry,"5 and predominates in education, law, the arts, and
of course, science. Many of today's intellectual attacks against
the Bible and Christianity-and creationism-are rooted in
naturalism.

In this world, where naturalism seems to reign, science is
considered supreme. Through scientific observation, we learn
things about the natural world. With scientific hypotheses,
people speculate about causes and effects in the natural world. In scientific language, writers describe the natural world. And,
in fact, whatever conflicts with science today (like creationism)
is viewed as unworthy of serious consideration.'

If you are getting the feeling that science today is philosophically biased, you are right on target! To be sure, science
has an objective element, and this objectivity involves empirical observations, the formulation of hypotheses, the testing of
those hypotheses by replication, and so forth. At the same time,
however, the worldview bias that permeates the thinking of scientists in all they do, guiding their observations and their hypotheses, is naturalism.7

The great commandment of naturalism seems to be: "Thou
shalt assume that everything in the universe has a natural explanation." And the second commandment is much like it: "Thou
shalt not even ponder the possibility that anything (or anyone)
outside the natural world (like God) has influenced the natural world, for this natural world is all that exists, and it is a closed
system." Because scientists automatically assume naturalism is
true, they will always interpret whatever they discover in terms
of the "preunderstanding" of naturalism. No exceptions.

Humanistic evolutionists are resolute in their position that
evolution is an unguided, unsupervised, mindless, purposeless,
impersonal process. Life on earth is nothing more than a cosmic
accident. Humanist Paul Kurtz, writing several decades after the
publication of the Humanist Manifesto II, commented:

Naturalists maintain that there is no scientific
evidence for a divine scheme of salvation, no
discernible teleological purpose in nature, and that
there are likewise insufficient grounds to believe in the
immortality of the soul. The classical doctrine of
creationism and its promise of an afterlife no doubt express the passionate existential yearning of human
beings to transcend death. The theory of evolution,
however, provides a more parsimonious account of
human origins which is based upon evidence drawn
from a wide range of the sciences.'

Evolutionist Julian Huxley likewise asserted that in view of
the "proven" truth of evolution, man can "no longer take refuge
from his loneliness in the arms of a divine father figure whom
he has himself created."9 God is viewed as a mere invention of
human culture. Those who hold on to belief in God are simply
displaying their pitiful ignorance. Appealing to the supernatural is therefore nonsensical. We are all alone in this great big
universe, and we'd better get used to dealing with our problems
on our own.

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (an avowed atheist) likewise
dismissed the idea that God guides the world of nature. He
forcefully argued that no external forces propel the process of
evolution and that one simply will not find evidence for God
in the "products of nature."'° The world of nature is a closed
system of material causes and effects and can admit no external influence."

Dismissing the reality of God has the added benefit for naturalists that they have no moral accountability to a Supreme Being.
Thomas Huxley-a champion of "aggressive secular material-
ism"'2-was personally comforted with the philosophy of naturalism and the accompanying idea that he had no God to answer
to at a future judgment. This is no doubt one of the appeals of
naturalism: freedom from the weight of moral obligation."

Huxley was quite outspoken about his anti-God views." A
case in point is his public debate with Anglican bishop Samuel
Wilberforce. According to Michael Behe's account, the bishop
asked, "I beg to know, is it through his grandfather or grandmother that Huxley claims his descent from a monkey?" Huxley muttered, "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." Huxley
then launched into his defense by giving an exposition on naturalistic biology. Behe notes that as Huxley closed his line of
argument, he said that

he didn't know whether it was through his grandmother
or grandfather that he was related to an ape, but that
he would rather be descended from simians [apes] than
be a man possessed of the gift of reason and see it used
as the bishop had used it that day. Ladies fainted, scientists cheered, and reporters ran to print the headline:
"War Between Science and Theology.""

C.S. Lewis once wrote, "If you begin by ruling out the supernatural, you will perceive no miracles."" He was right. The
philosophy of naturalism asserts that the universe operates
according to uniform natural causes and that no force outside
the universe can intervene in the cosmos. This is an antisuper-
natural assumption that prohibits any possibility of miracles.

Naturalists dismiss miracles in many ways. Some say the
observers of alleged miracles are simply mistaken. Others argue
that just because we don't have a present explanation for some
inexplicable event does not mean the supernatural was involved;
as we grow in our understanding of the natural processes, we
may come to a new natural understanding regarding what
many previously thought were miraculous events. Almost all
critics of miracles hold that the statistical consistency of natural law (or "laws of nature") is such that supernatural events
are impossible.

Sometimes we come across references to the "miracles of
modern technology." Naturalists argue that if our ancestors
witnessed some of the advances we have today-the space
shuttle, cell phone, DVD player, computer, and the like-they would surely consider such things as miraculous. Naturalists thus
reason that the more scientific understanding we have, the less
we need to believe in the supernatural.

The possibility of miracles has long been denied by naturalist and humanistic thinkers. Benedict Spinoza denied the
possibility of miracles because they are irrational. Rudolph
Bultmann said that miracles were simply part of the mythological worldview that was part and parcel of biblical times.
Immanuel Kant argued that miracles are not essential to religion." But perhaps the most prolific debunker of miracles was
David Hume.

Hume was a British empiricist (meaning he believed all
knowledge comes from the five senses) and a skeptic of the
Enlightenment. In a chapter entitled "On Miracles" in his
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he argued that, given
the general experience of the uniformity of nature, miracles are
highly improbable, and that the evidence in their favor is far
from convincing." He wrote: "A miracle is a violation of the
laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very
nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience
can possibly be imagined."`9

In his thinking, since all of one's knowledge is derived from
experience, and since this experience conveys the absolute regularity of nature, any report of a miracle is much more likely to
be a false report than a true interruption in the uniform course
of nature. Hence, a report of a resurrection from the dead (for
example) is in all probability a deceptive report.

Randal Keynes, the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin,
tells us that David Hume was one of Darwin's "guiding lights. "20
In keeping with Hume's guidance, Darwin "proposed an explanation for evolution that did not rely on any supernatural powers
or forces. He explained evolution naturally, that is, by using
phenomena and processes that everybody could daily observe in nature."21 Darwin was "an ardent naturalist," pure and
simple.22 He jettisoned God out the back door.

A proper response to the philosophy of naturalism requires
a book-length treatment.23 For the purposes of this chapter,
however, space allows for only a few salient points. First and
foremost, naturalism can be undermined by the very science it
claims to hold in high regard. As Phillip E. Johnson says, the
one thing that might suffice to bring naturalism to its knees is
the fact that the gap is widening between naturalism and the
plain facts of scientific investigation. He suggests that "the beginning of the end will come when Darwinists are forced to face
this one simple question: What should we do if empirical
evidence and materialist philosophy are going in different direc-
tions?"24

What would one do, for example, if hard scientific evidence
were discovered that proved beyond any doubt that the universe
is the result of intelligent design instead of just random mechanical processes? In fact, I believe we are witnessing this discovery in our own day. In chapter 8 of this book, I examine in detail
the exciting field of intelligent design theory. In my view, intelligent design may be just the thing that will punch a big hole
in the boat of naturalism.

Beyond the scientific undermining of naturalism, the
creationist can also intelligently respond to naturalism's rejection of the possibility of miracles (such as the miracle of creation).
In what follows, I will offer four brief points in this regard.

1. There is uniformity in the present cosmos. Contrary to
the typical evolutionist caricature, creationists do not argue
against the idea of uniform "laws of nature" in the present
cosmos, nor do they hold such laws in low regard. As theologian John Witmer put it,

The Christian position is not that the universe is
capricious and erratic. Christians expect the sun to rise
in the east tomorrow as it always has just as everyone
else does. Christians recognize that this world is a
cosmos, an orderly system, not a chaos. More than that,
Christians agree that the regularity of the universe is
observable by men and expressible in principles or laws.
As a result Christians do not deny the existence of what
are called the laws of nature. Nor do they think that
the occurrence of miracles destroys these laws or makes
them inoperative."

What Christians take exception to is the notion that the
universe is a self-contained, closed system with absolute laws
that are inviolable. Christians believe that the reason for regularity in the universe-the reason we can observe "laws" in the
world of nature-is that God designed creation that way. We
must remember, however, that the laws of nature are merely
observations of uniformity or constancy in nature. They are not
forces which initiate action. They simply describe the way nature
behaves when its course is not affected by a superior power. But
God is not prohibited from taking action in the world if He
so desires.