Using Darwin’s Bulldog To Show A Rational Creationism

People are often surprised to learn that I build the central premise of my first non-fiction book, Defending Genesis, upon the words of the man known as Darwin’s Bulldog.  You see, while Thomas Huxley was certainly no friend of religion, he did have the intellectual honesty to concede that Biblical creationism was rational.

`Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.”

Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63

Many modern evolutionists are so antagonistic to Biblical creationism that they will not concede the rationality of our position. They do so because they have been taught that the scientific method is the only rational approach to understanding the world and that the supernatural is just an outmoded pre-scientific concept that must ultimately be replaced with superior answers based on pure naturalism. Thus, it never enters their mind that the supernatural might exist. 

In Defending Genesis, I explain why modern science can’t rule out God:

“If God exists, there exists the possibility that some problems will require a supernatural answer.

Now, this is not to say that all problems will require a supernatural answer [an appeal to God, if you will] or that no problems will have natural explanations. Given the intricacy and complexity of design observable in nature, but also the inter-relatedness of its systems, laws, ecologies and species, (and in light of the promise of the uniformity of nature given in Genesis 8:22) we should expect to see that a majority of the problems shall have natural solutions. To put it another way, since the supernatural [God] has set up the natural world and its laws, processes, et cetera, and since we observe the natural world we inhabit and have limited or no access to the supernatural [here, being that which exists outside the natural] apart from God’s will and revelation, we should expect that most solutions of the natural world shall be natural.

Even so, if the world has a supernatural designer, a minority of data and problems shall certainly require a supernatural explanation [again, if God does indeed exist]. 

Problems requiring a supernatural explanation will not be unexplainable by natural processes alone. Note that this is not a “god of the gaps” approach or argument from ignorance. Problems requiring a supernatural explanation would not be explainable by naturalism. In other words, it would be found that naturalism was inadequate to explain the problem without invoking processes are not consistent with processes we observe in nature today, not merely that naturalism could not explain it yet. For example, input of new information and processes such as that required for the origin of the universe and life [e.g., the origin of life, the origin of law, the origin of energy, the origin of matter, the origin of information, the origin of consciousness, etc.].

This would also include things which are irreducibly complex or inconceivably improbable for natural processes to account for, such as elements of intelligent design or phenomena that may only be explained by intervention [an overruling of natural law and processes] by the supernatural. For example, irreducible complexity, unaccountable ascending orders of information, and a “fingerprint” of homologous design elements incorporated into differing processes/entities.

This would likewise include supernatural acts related to us via supernatural revelation. Supernatural revelation would, at minimum, accurately describe the world, including the human condition, and be vindicated by a phenomenon not explainable by naturalism, such as fulfilled prophecy. 

If God exists, He exists whether He is allowed as a viable or valid explanation or not.

This presents a problem for naturalistic science. You see, 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. If science a priori rules out the supernatural as a possibility, its methodology and bias will prevent it from coming to any conclusions, save naturalism. Actually it cannot be stressed enough that if God exists, the presumption of pure naturalism is incorrect. So it follows that if science persists in its presumption of pure naturalism and refusal to consider supernatural explanations, it will become something other than science, something closer to dogma.

Thus, ruling out the supernatural as a solution a priori is unscientific. True science follows the evidence wherever it leads, without regard for opinions, institutions or prevailing paradigms of the day. To state it another way, freedom of inquiry is a requirement of true science, since without freedom of inquiry science cannot be self-correcting.

Ruling out a set of possible explanations a priori simply begs the question of naturalism. As such, it is a dogmatic denialism of all other possibility. Since this stance also implies that all questions will eventually have natural answers, this stance can be equated with the belief system called Scientism. Legitimately ruling out the supernatural as a possible set of explanation would either require [1] omniscience on the part of scientists or [2] the experiential net equivalent of omniscience, having explored all possible solutions, legitimately answered every question with naturalism in a non-arbitrary, logically consistent manner and having ruled the supernatural out by default.

The first requirement would require an attribute of the supernatural which would preclude pure naturalism from being the sole answer to all questions. The second requirement also requires freedom of inquiry in order to succeed, but would require the final solution and therefore the culmination [end] of all scientific inquiry. It was also require that all these all-natural answers be non-arbitrary and logically consistent; even then, omniscience might well be required to safeguard us from the possibility of merely fooling ourselves! In any case, ruling out the supernatural as a possible set of explanation without either omniscience or the completion of all scientific inquiry is simply a leap of faith or belief of bias and cannot be said to have been accomplished through proper scientific inquiry.”

If you’d like to learn more about why  Biblical Creationism is the most rational worldview, you can purchase a copy of Defending Genesis on Amazon.


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