Scientific Naturalism In The Case For A Creator Essay
It could be argued by the Western world, that science is our God. Due to the vast progression in science, man has been able to make amazing discoveries and accomplishments, such as putting roving robots on mars, creating machines that can go faster than the speed of sound and creating a thirty inch television that can be rolled up and be put in a paper towel tube for our convenience. While scientific discoveries and accomplishments are usually amazing, beneficial and bring further understanding of the world around us, there is a real danger of replacing God with science, such as those who hold the belief of scientific naturalism. Those who uphold scientific naturalism believe that “nothing exists except the material, there are no nonphysical entities such as God or souls”, as they shut out God completely and try to impose their beliefs on the world around them (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 101).
Lee Strobel wrote the book, “The Case for a Creator” and from it came a movie titled the same name. In the movie “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel systematically goes through the various arguments that scientist and scientific naturalists claim undermine and refute …show more content…
God as Creator of all things. Out of all of the arguments made in the movie, the ones I found to undercut scientific naturalism the most were: organisms did not come from primordial soup, the universe was created with intelligent design and the cellular structure points to intelligent design.
The movie “The Case for a Creator”, begins with the argument that organisms could not have come from a primordial soup like Darwin and later on chemist Stanley Miller suggested. Organisms coming from a primordial soup in the way that Darwin and Miller theorized would simply be improbable, as even the simplest of cellular creatures have incredibly complex systems that defy successful chance combinations to allow survival. The oldest fossil records cannot provide evidence that support the development of these theorized simple cellular or transitional creatures, as the very oldest fossils found show only creatures with complex systems.
It is important to understand that organisms could not have come and progressed from a primordial soup, for if it was proved to be true, then mankind truly could have been formed without a soul by nature and chance. Scientific naturalist are bent on believing we are mere matter and scientific naturalist “wants us to get rid of God or the soul” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 112). Scientific naturalist claim “everything that happens in the cosmos is governed by what we refer to frequently as the laws of nature” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 101). If scientific naturalist were to look at the laws of nature, and what science shows concerning the fossil record, they themselves should be one of the first to understand that the evidence points to creatures on earth being created suddenly, much like that described in the book of Genesis.
The movie “The Case for a Creator” argues that God was the creator of the universe, which can be seen in cosmology. It was commonly thought throughout the ages of the Western world that the universe is eternal. Not until Einstein’s theory of relativity did man come to understand that the universe is not static and is ever-expanding. Understanding the universes expansion allowed scientist to come to the conclusion that, if we could rewind time we could see the universe reverse its expansion to a point where there would be nothing. The Big Bang theory arrived from this new understanding of expansion, but instead of coming to the conclusion that perhaps the universe had a Creator, Big Bang theorist argue that the universe came into being without a cause. “The Case for a Creator” argues against the notion that something came from nothing, and the cause for the universes expansion is God.
It is important to understand that science does not contradict that the universe was created with intelligent design, because the very foundations of the Bible is based on this truth. While the Western world proclaimed that the universe is eternal, the Bible continued to contradict the popular belief by stating it came into existence suddenly. Scientific evidence showing that there was a starting point for the universe directly goes against what scientific naturalism asserts, as they believe “nothing essentially new comes into existence (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 101).
The movie “The Case for a Creator” argues that cellular structure points to intelligent design, as the cellular structure is like a signature of intelligent design, which can be seen in the microbiology.
Macro-evolutionist deny this intelligent design, as they depend on the concept that cellular structure and function is simple enough for chance development. Despite scientific claims of its simplicity, cells have mechanical structures that supersede our present day ability in biology, electronics and mechanics. Mechanisms such as the intricate and motor-like flagellum in cells astound and baffle present day technology. “The Case for a Creator” brings up another cellular structure that is improbable to accidentally developing called DNA, which has over three billion units of specifically organized
data.
It is important to understand how the cellular structure points to intelligent design, for by looking at and studying the structure of a cell, we can see the vast amounts of design in something so small. Scientific naturalism claims that “the laws of nature are not thought to have originated in a purposeful act of creation”, and that “they are presumed to be unchanging and without exception” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 102). The theory of Irreducible Complexity suggests that the chances of a cell occurring by accident, are more than just astronomically improbable, pointing once again to a creator with intelligent design.
While many may live today, as if science is their God, I am convinced otherwise. Despite the fact that there is evidence provided in cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, and biological information that points to a Creator, there are those who continue to adhere to scientific naturalism and refuse to look at the evidence. I believe that as we continue to make scientific progression, it will continue to point to evidence of a Creator and weaken the influence of Scientific Naturalism.
Works Cited
Wilkens, S. & Sanford, M. L. (2009). Hidden worldviews: eight cultural stories that shape our lives. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Lee Strobel wrote the book, “The Case for a Creator” and from it came a movie titled the same name. In the movie “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel systematically goes through the various arguments that scientist and scientific naturalists claim undermine and refute …show more content…
God as Creator of all things. Out of all of the arguments made in the movie, the ones I found to undercut scientific naturalism the most were: organisms did not come from primordial soup, the universe was created with intelligent design and the cellular structure points to intelligent design.
The movie “The Case for a Creator”, begins with the argument that organisms could not have come from a primordial soup like Darwin and later on chemist Stanley Miller suggested. Organisms coming from a primordial soup in the way that Darwin and Miller theorized would simply be improbable, as even the simplest of cellular creatures have incredibly complex systems that defy successful chance combinations to allow survival. The oldest fossil records cannot provide evidence that support the development of these theorized simple cellular or transitional creatures, as the very oldest fossils found show only creatures with complex systems.
It is important to understand that organisms could not have come and progressed from a primordial soup, for if it was proved to be true, then mankind truly could have been formed without a soul by nature and chance. Scientific naturalist are bent on believing we are mere matter and scientific naturalist “wants us to get rid of God or the soul” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 112). Scientific naturalist claim “everything that happens in the cosmos is governed by what we refer to frequently as the laws of nature” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 101). If scientific naturalist were to look at the laws of nature, and what science shows concerning the fossil record, they themselves should be one of the first to understand that the evidence points to creatures on earth being created suddenly, much like that described in the book of Genesis.
The movie “The Case for a Creator” argues that God was the creator of the universe, which can be seen in cosmology. It was commonly thought throughout the ages of the Western world that the universe is eternal. Not until Einstein’s theory of relativity did man come to understand that the universe is not static and is ever-expanding. Understanding the universes expansion allowed scientist to come to the conclusion that, if we could rewind time we could see the universe reverse its expansion to a point where there would be nothing. The Big Bang theory arrived from this new understanding of expansion, but instead of coming to the conclusion that perhaps the universe had a Creator, Big Bang theorist argue that the universe came into being without a cause. “The Case for a Creator” argues against the notion that something came from nothing, and the cause for the universes expansion is God.
It is important to understand that science does not contradict that the universe was created with intelligent design, because the very foundations of the Bible is based on this truth. While the Western world proclaimed that the universe is eternal, the Bible continued to contradict the popular belief by stating it came into existence suddenly. Scientific evidence showing that there was a starting point for the universe directly goes against what scientific naturalism asserts, as they believe “nothing essentially new comes into existence (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 101).
The movie “The Case for a Creator” argues that cellular structure points to intelligent design, as the cellular structure is like a signature of intelligent design, which can be seen in the microbiology.
Macro-evolutionist deny this intelligent design, as they depend on the concept that cellular structure and function is simple enough for chance development. Despite scientific claims of its simplicity, cells have mechanical structures that supersede our present day ability in biology, electronics and mechanics. Mechanisms such as the intricate and motor-like flagellum in cells astound and baffle present day technology. “The Case for a Creator” brings up another cellular structure that is improbable to accidentally developing called DNA, which has over three billion units of specifically organized
data.
It is important to understand how the cellular structure points to intelligent design, for by looking at and studying the structure of a cell, we can see the vast amounts of design in something so small. Scientific naturalism claims that “the laws of nature are not thought to have originated in a purposeful act of creation”, and that “they are presumed to be unchanging and without exception” (Wilkens & Sanford, 2009, p. 102). The theory of Irreducible Complexity suggests that the chances of a cell occurring by accident, are more than just astronomically improbable, pointing once again to a creator with intelligent design.
While many may live today, as if science is their God, I am convinced otherwise. Despite the fact that there is evidence provided in cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, and biological information that points to a Creator, there are those who continue to adhere to scientific naturalism and refuse to look at the evidence. I believe that as we continue to make scientific progression, it will continue to point to evidence of a Creator and weaken the influence of Scientific Naturalism.
Works Cited
Wilkens, S. & Sanford, M. L. (2009). Hidden worldviews: eight cultural stories that shape our lives. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.