There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! [Revisited]

Once upon a time, I wrote under the pseudonymn Sirius Knott. For whatever reason, I got into a tussle with this evo character who insisted that science could only be conducted under the assumption of naturalism. This was back when Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, first came out, so there was a lot of debate about academic freedom. Anyway, I ended up writing an article challenging that assumption called There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! [later re-published as Willful Ignorance: The Flaw of Equating Naturalism With Science].

As I wrote back then:

The modern scientific establishment has decided by scholastic fiat that naturalism [i.e. – atheism] shall be the basis of all science. In doing so, they have a priori excluded the possibility of the supernatural, of God. They have mandated that an entire body of possible explanation be banned from consideration. Only explanations consistent with pure naturalism will be allowed.

Dutifully, I pointed out that, rationally speaking, there were a a couple of flaws to this approach; namely, that:

  • 1. If God exists, there exists the possibility that some problems will require a supernatural answer.
  • 2. If God exists, He exists whether He is allowed as a viable or valid explanation or not.
  • 3. If God exists and the supernatural is a priori ruled out as a possible answer to any problem, science MUST needs be wrong at some point.
  • 4. Ruling out the supernatural as a solution a priori is unscientific.
  • 5. Ruling out the supernatural a priori as possible is irrational.

There was more to the argument, of course, and you can read the original post if you’d like to see my rationale in full, but that was it in a nutshell.

A few days ago, I wrote an article called Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws To Protect It, in which I drew attention to efforts by the British Humanist Association and a handful of evolutionist, including misotheist Richard Dawkins, regarding science education in UK schools. In essence, they want microbes-to-man evolution taught exclusively and uncritically in all UK schools, and, since they do in fact believe the Biblical axiom of Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”), they want our children indoctrinated in evolutionary dogma at an earlier age.

Evolutionists were livid. I’ve received more “fan mail” over the last few days than I care to mention. Most of the comments consisted of insult, mockery, taunts to read a biology textbook, etc. Of course, I have Rules of Engagement on this website and my readers will not be subjected to that sophomoric screed.  

Nevertheless I was surprised to detect a common theme in some of the more cogent responses. The general protest to my article was that special creation and intelligent design theory have no place in the science curriculum because they have defined science according to the assumption of pure naturalism. By these rules, science only deals with natural explanations of observed phenomena, therefore it cannot comment on the supernatural, whether true or false. From this premise they insist that we ought only to teach all-natural evolution, whether true or not, basically because it is all-natural. This places science in the ridiculous place of being potentially being very, very wrong. You see, if the universe came about by itself by chance and then happened to develop order from chaos by chance and then to develop in an all-natural way by means of those ordered processes and principles of the universe, all well and good; however, if supernatural agency was actually responsible for even a portion of the universe we observe, at some point scientists will come across this problem that should be acknowledged as an act of God but instead, according to the all-natural dictates of their definition of science, they will create an all-natural scenario for how it could have come about… and they will be very, very wrong and never know it! If the Biblical account of Creation is true, the presumption of naturalism will actually prevent them from considering the truth from being discovered by scientists! Worse, since they do not like to keep God in their minds and arbitrarily suppress a set of possible explanations [and please don’t quote Occam’s razor on me; it only forbids unnecessary entities and, well, if God actually created the universe then it’s necessary to postulate Him], they end up exchanging the truth for fables of their own creation, all-natural Just-so stories to account for things they should have given God credit for.

I should also note that it is hubris to suggest that science has ruled out supernatural agency or special creation by coming up with an all-natural origins scenario, while claiming that science cannot comment on the supernatural by its very nature.

If science cannot comment on the supernatural, then it cannot rule it out; it can only come up with all-natural answers that may or may not be true, and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible!

By insisting that this all-natural origins framework be taught as fact to our children in public schools without either showing the flaws of that theory [including the limitation that it can only come up with all-natural answers that may or may not be true, and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible, though it would never be able to ascertain this error under the arbitrary limitation of science as naturalism] or by teaching the competing supernatural origins framework,  they are simply indoctrinating kids in a secular humanist worldview.  Some folks will object that to be secular is best because it’s neutral to religion or irreligion, but this is demonstrably false. To be secular is to be irreligious, it is to favor irreligion over religion… and it implies to our children that such irreligion is preferable in our society!  Furthermore, it is impossible to be neutral on the issue of Biblical authority.

Think about it.

-Rev Tony Breeden



2 Comments Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s