Naturalism Isn’t Natural… It’s Bias

Some have said, “you can’t just say God did everything. There’s no explanation in that.” OK. let’s just say “nature” does everything. Now we’ve come to some “superior” explanation! Sarcasm aside, saying God is the cause of all phenomenon does not preclude a scientific understanding of that phenomenon! Let’s have a scientific understanding of everything. But in the end, are we going to attribute the cause to “nature” or God? Which is our God, “nature” or God?

On top of that, so many so called “scientists” marry science to Naturalism. More specifically, they limit their scientific hypothesis’ to only natural explanations! Why they do this, I don’t know! Maybe it’s because they hate God. Just my hypothesis.

The funny thing is that no one even knows what the “natural” ultimately is!!! Not even Naturalists! Not even they can tell you what the fundamental substance is that everything is made up of. “Well everything is just atoms and electromagnetism at its bare core.” OK… that is until we begin to discover what that is made up of, and then what that is made up of, and so forth, an so forth, and on and on and on… What is “the natural”? Yet “scientists”, Evolutionists, and Naturalists throw this word around as though it were actually a solidified thing.

I can use the same line of reasoning as the Naturalist and say “God is a Naturalist”. Meaning, it’s perfectly natural for God to create, uphold, and allow all that is. This in no way, shape, or form negates scientific explanations. It only posits God as our ultimate reality, rather then whatever is believed to be “natural”. The supernatural is more natural than Naturalism!

Is Science and Religion Compatible?

As I’m sure you are aware, this is a commonly asked question these days. This has been a topic of debate for centuries and wont be taking a vacation any time soon.

First of all, this is a very non-specific question disguised as a specific question. One first needs to define “science” and “religion”. Science itself is not a ‘thing’ but a way of analyzing data, most commonly by way of the scientific method. Religion is nothing other than a set of principles firmly believed. But everyone has these, even atheists. Everyone has a view of the world, hence, a “worldview”. I believe what people generally are asking however is “what relationship is there between the observable and the non-observable?”

Laurence Tisdall On Evolution

Here is a debate I came across that was held on the Michael Coren show. This is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve ever seen on Creationism/ID (Intelligent Design)/Evolution. If I wasn’t a Christian I may have considered leaning towards Creationism or ID after watching this. It’s interesting that while the Christian (Laurence Tisdall) wants to talk about science and evidence, the Evolutionist (Jason Wiles) wants to change the topic. The only thing I hear the Evolutionist claiming is “Evolution is true because it is, it’s the majority position among scientists, or, I know of websites which counter Creationist arguments therefore I don’t need to try and explain anything.” The Evolutionist seems to have kept avoiding the Creationists challenges to him, esspecially how information within DNA can create itself.

Most people charge Christians or ID advocates for coping out by accepting that a Creator is a sufficient explanation for human existence. But as Tisdall says “I believe in a Creator because of what I do know (ie. life can only come from life), not because of what I don’t know (ie. using a Creator as an arbitrary answer to an unsolved problem). It is scientific to say there must be a Creator (just as it is scientific to say a computer program had a programer), but it is a metaphysical claim to say who that Creator is specifically. I also like the other point that Tisdall brings up about Galileo. The majority of scientists in Galileo’s day thought the earth was flat, but that didn’t make it true. The same with Evolution. Just because a supposed majority of scientists believe Evolution is true doesn’t mean the truth bell rings and it becomes so. Please watch this video for yourself and comment below with your own opinions.

You can also visit Tisdall’s website here for more Creationist/ID resources.

Questions I have for Evolutionists, Q1

Question 1:

Evolution teaches that all of the existing creatures on planet earth today have evolved from nothing. In other words, all creatures, as they are today, are the result of many complex mutations. Our ancestors are liquid chemicals. We have gone from matter being arranged in a certain fashion, to our present state, matter being arranged in another fashion. My question is “have we progressed in our evolutionary stage or have we digressed?” If we have done either, then what is the criterion we consult to know? Or are we still no different than all other matter?

Questions I have for Evolutionists, Q2

Question 2:

After asking an Evolutionist how we evolved with many “useful” body parts, they told me “we adapted to our surroundings”. Hence why we have body parts such as eyes, ears, hands, legs, etc. What were then, the specific surroundings for our hearing abilities to evolve?

Questions I have for Evolutionists, Q3

Question 3:

What is being “alive” in scientific terms?

Questions I have for Evolutionists, Q4

Question 4:

The mechanism which explains the phenomenon by which living organisms evolve into more complex organisms is called ’survival of the fittest’. This is the common explanation of the evolutionary process. Even though many philosophers and philosophers of science, whether Christian or non-Christian, debate back and forth as to whether this system is a tautology (void of any real explanatory power as to how things evolve), I see this explanation as attempting to answer the ‘how’ behind the evolutionary process.

If Evolution is the process by which living organisms mutate into more complex organisms, it seems only reasonable for one to ask “well ‘how’ does that happen?”. Which then, the typical answer is “survival of the fittest”. In other words, whatever creatures are most fit for survival will survive. Fitness is detected by what assists survival. Therefore, survival is predicated upon what assists survival (fitness). In other words, ’survival of the fittest’ is ’survival of what is able to survive’. Things survive because they are able to. This is the scientific explanation we are given as to why Evolution is possible. So now that I look at it, this explanation does have ‘tautology’ written all over it.

Questions I have for Evolutionists, Q5

Question: 5

At what point of human evolution did morality become an actual thing? Somewhere along the line of the evolutionary process, which is us evolving from the primordial oceans to our present human state, moral rights and wrongs have evolved as well (according to the naturalists who says morality exists).

If someone were to stick a knife in what is now our current evolutionary state, human beings, this is considered by many to be morally inappropriate. Yet it doesn’t seem too likely that there would be much concern if someone were to have stuck a knife in the ancient primordial oceans, the state in which we evolved from. Therefore, at what point along the evolutionary process, going from a liquid existence within the primordial oceans to a walking human being, ought morality be taken into account? Or, what point along this process ought sticking knives in matter be deemed morally intolerable according to Evolutionists?