UTT - Blog Post 10

Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.  35 points, due Monday, 12th by midnight.

            Well, let’s take this one from three different angles: From the areas of logic, evidence, and history—since those are three huge problem areas for a naturalistic explanation for life. Let’s assume naturalism means the evolutionary standpoint that nature is all there is and the physical, natural universe evolved from natural causes (since there can’t be a supernatural source in naturalism).

        1. Logic: The first major problem area is in logic. We all know that spontaneous generation has been disproved through modern science, so it is generally understood that life cannot come from nonlife. So, therefore, the evolutionary theory of origin cannot stand because it states that amoebas and proteins formed from a random coalition of chance particles that were generated out of nothing. Logically, it doesn’t seem right. Adding the buzz phrase of “millions and billions of years” really doesn’t change anything—if it can’t happen today, it can’t happen then either. We have the same environment, far more technology and understanding of our biological planet, and so much more than was present back then, and we still cannot reproduce such a feat as naturalistic evolution claims created life as we know it.

        2. Evidence: Like any other scientific theory, evidence is necessary to proving it a fact, and naturalistic explanations lack a lot of what they claim. For example, there are few to no transitional forms to back up evolution as a claim of origins, and thus we have no evidence to support the theory. Despite claims to the contrary, the attempt of top evolutionary scientists to falsify these forms (such as Lucy, the Cro-Magnon Man, et. al.) and then creating such a big hullabaloo over their appearance definitely doesn’t inspire confidence in the truth of naturalistic evolution. Further, any attempts to recreate the scenarios of our claimed ‘origins of life’ have fallen apart because they cannot support life as claimed. So, in the area of evidence, evolution is left sorely lacking.

        3. History: Finally, the historical background for a naturalistic explanation for life has never been supported. All of our documented examples of “evolution” have been, in fact, demonstrations of micro-evolution, or small adaptations within a species. Never has there been the viable appearance of macro-evolutionary evidence because it has not appeared over the entire course of human history despite the necessity of its continued path to be a help for the evolutionary cause. Moreover, all the documented mutations that are claimed to be helpful have, in fact, caused death and have never survived in a species—the others isolate and destroy the “freak.” Thus history cannot prove naturalistic evolution.

        Overall, then, we must assume that, with those three problem areas for evolution, naturalistic explanations for life cannot in fact be true.