Science has been hijacked by philosophical naturalism – the belief that everything originated naturally, operates naturally, and is sustained naturally apart from a Designer. Only natural explanations are allowed. Consequently, any scientist who offers a supernatural (ID) rather than a natural explanation risks both job and reputation.
However, there is not one stitch of evidence to support naturalism. Yes, we all agree that there are laws and that they operate predictably. However, there is no evidence that these laws operate naturally. Instead, there are numerous reasons that would lead us to conclude that God created and sustains everything.
Here are some logical reasons I offered to an atheist:
- There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that these laws are natural, unintelligent in origin, and independent of one another. Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the “natural” hadn’t yet been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they find their origin and unity in the single Mind of God.
- Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion, naturalism can’t identify an unchanging cause to account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can!
- Reason, logic, and the laws of science are uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter, and energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.
Besides, what can account for the way that two objects attract? A law, of course! But what can account for the law? And if you can answer this, you would then find that you need to account for your answer, ad infinitum! Only with an uncaused, eternally existing God can we find relief from this problem of infinite regress.
- The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism is unable to postulate such a sufficient cause. Our experience with causal agents informs us that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused – a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than His creation.
- And there are so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many wild theoretical leaps into multiverses, co-option, and the emergent properties of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. ID, by contrast, merely postulates that an intelligent cause outside the natural order is the best explanation for it all.
- Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the laws of science. However, ID can!
In response to this, the atheist will point to the body of “natural” explanations we have for all forms of scientific phenomena, and they’ll say:
- Look at all of the understanding that naturalism has produced. Therefore, naturalism is clearly supported by this evidence.
However, this claim can only be made by sleight-of-hand. The explanations do not provide any support for naturalism, even though we call them “natural” explanations. Instead, they are explanations that invoke the various laws of science, without consideration of whether they are natural or supernatural. Therefore, calling them “natural” explanations is highly misleading. Instead, it would be better to call them something neutral like “scientific” explanations.