Creation vs Naturalism

Creation vs. Naturalism The creation vs. evolution debate is a continuous debate. How and why are we here on earth? Were we purposely made or did we evolve accidentally? Are we the creation of innovative intelligence or are we simply the end result of countless cosmic accidents? What does the evidence say? Two dominant views seem to battle their ideas and beliefs for countless centuries. While theists believe God is our glorious creator of everything, naturalists hold truth that God does not exist, only matter exists and we came into existence and operate by only physical processes.

Without concrete evidence, the creation vs. nature debate doesn’t amount to much more than a philosophical dispute. Although everyone has the right to their own opinion, the question is what is the true source for that opinion? Individuals are capable to believe whatever they chose, yet that doesn’t make them right. Many decide to stand strong to “evidence”, but that evidence is not the same as actual proof. Evidence is helpful to form assumptions, while proof concludes the situation. If we had stone cold proof, the theory of evolution wouldn’t be called a theory.

Creation signifies the existence of a divine creator who put the world and all life-forms into existence. Life is the product of intelligent design. Therefore, a perfect design in biology would constitute for a “Designer”. It is a self-evident design and universally recognized truth: ideas and design require an intelligent designer. Thus, while acknowledging design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it definitely has theological implications. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.

Evolution emphasizes the naturalistic origin of all creatures that initially evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism of natural selection. That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the remarkable advances we’ve made over the ast fifty years we’ve been introduced to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism capable of overcoming constraints and barriers which have been discovered within recent years. Until this is found, evolution lacks any real credibility. Naturalists understand s not only that we are not exceptions to laws, but that we do not need to be in order to secure any value (freedom, moral responsibility, morality) or capacity (reason, empathy, ingenuity, originality). They affirm and revel in the fact that nature is enough.

The acknowledgement that people are natural creatures has given naturalists positive effects, increasing their sense of connections to the world and those surrounding them This realization supports a progressive and effective engagement with the human condition in all its dimensions. By staying true to science, naturalists find themselves at home in the cosmos, astonished at the sheer scope and complexity of the natural world, and grateful for the chance to participate in the grand project of nature coming to know herself. One of the major reasons naturalists give for rejecting creationism is the concept of miracles.

Ironically, naturalists will typically say that miracles, such as special creation, are impossible because they violate the laws of nature, which have been clearly and historically observed. Such a view is ironic on several counts. As a single example, consider abiogenesis, the theory of life springing from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is one of the most thoroughly refuted concepts of science. (1) Yet, a truly naturalistic viewpoint presumes that life on earth—self-replicating, self-sustaining, complex organic life—arose by chance from non-living matter.

Such a thing has never been observed in all of human history. The beneficial evolutionary changes needed to progress a creature to a more complex form have also never been observed. Therefore, creationism actually holds the edge on evidence for miraculous claims considering the Scriptures provide documented accounts of miraculous happenings. To label creationism as unscientific on account of miracles demands a similar label for naturalism. In Sires book we read, “Naturalism itself implies no particular core commitment on the part of any given naturalist.

Rather core commitments are adopted unwittingly or chosen by individuals. Each individual is free to choose whatever goal or commitment he or she wishes. ” (2) With no belief in the Lord, there is no plan for our lives. We are capable to decide what we want, how we want to live, and where we decide to go. There are no real rules for l living besides what the government mandates for us. Every Christian can agree that we end up either nowhere or in a battle when we stray and follow our own plan. If there was no divine creator, than what truly is our purpose?

We would merely be worthless breathing creatures aimlessly walking the earth. Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the “Father of the American Rocket and Space Program,” replied, “Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements.

What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction. ” To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to “violate the very objectivity of science itself. While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. (3) The general media often depicts the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it’s the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith. Creationists believe God is creator or all. He made the earth and all it encompasses and breathed life into each of us. How do we know this?

Simply put, the bible tells us so. He spoke into us and those who wrote it. The bible is infallible and is said to be our road map to life. It holds every ounce of historical proof one needs to prove its truth and Gods existence. Deuteronomy 29:29 states “The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. ” (4) He has given us the freedom to walk with Him. Even through the toughest of times He reveals Himself to us for comfort, strength, and direction.

For those to choose not to believe so is ridiculous. Creation is by definition a divine miracle, an act of God which is outside of and above the physical laws He has established in the world. Therefore, scientists who believe in creation do not try to devise theories to explain how God created, for human beings cannot understand how God created. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists say that they are devising theories to explain the evolution of all life and that they are discovering natural processes or mechanisms which can evolve new plants and animals.

The burden of proof is up on them trying to give theories to explain evolution and show processes which can produce new plants and animals. Has evolutionary theory really explained evolution? No. Have they discovered any mechanism or process of genetics which can evolve anything really new? No, they have not. And, as long as this failure of evolutionary science continues, divine special creation continues to be an intellectually and scientifically viable belief for anybody, including scientists, to hold. Works Citied . century, the middle of the 19th, and the theory of biogenesis. “Abiogenesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N. p. , n. d. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. ;lt;http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Abiogenesis;gt;. 2. Sire, James W.. “Chapter 3. ” The universe next door: a basic worldview catalog. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 84. Print. 3. Blick, Edward F.. “Chapter 1. ” Special creation vs. evolution. Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1981. 29-31. Print.