Introduction

This paper argues that scientific naturalism makes inaccurate predictions regarding the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin and development of life, and miracles and that Christianity makes correct ones.

Analysis of Scientific Naturalism

Scientific naturalism, or ontological naturalism, assumes that the natural realm is a closed system and that all physical effects have physical causes. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, David Papineau, writes about ontological naturalism: “The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity.”[1] This view is sometimes called physicalism or materialism. Ontological naturalism differs from methodological naturalism, which assumes that to do science, one must look for physical or natural causes of phenomena but does not deny the possibility of the supernatural.

Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, defines scientific naturalism this way: “Scientific naturalism is the principle that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena.” [2] Shermer includes methodological naturalism in the category of scientific naturalism, but this is controversial, as theist scientists may also apply methodological naturalism in their research but accept its limitations.

More specifically, ontological naturalism asserts that there is no God and no supernatural. The following specific assumptions follow from this:

• The universe has always existed and/or is the result of purely natural processes, and its apparent fine-tuning can, in principle, be explained by natural processes.
• Life on earth arose through natural processes or was planted by an advanced alien civilization, which in turn arose through purely natural processes.
• Unguided Darwinian Evolution (mutations and natural selection) explains the appearance of design among living creatures.[3]
• Miracles are impossible, since supernatural intervention cannot occur (no supernatural, no intervention) and natural laws are immutable.
• Scientific naturalism assumes that there is no purpose (no teleology) in the universe.

Critique of Scientific Naturalism

Description of Theist’s God

Let us begin with an understanding of what the theist’s God is. Stated simply, God is a mind, consciousness, one that has always existed (eternal), is very powerful (omnipotent), and can make decisions (personal). Such a being would not be subject to the laws that govern matter and energy. In fact, such a being would establish those laws. Since the universe as we know it is contingent, that is, it could have been very different, philosopher Keith Ward argues that the simplest reason for our universe to exist as it does is that an immaterial, eternal, powerful, and personal being willed it into existence. All other explanations add a great deal of complexity. And so, it is highly probable that God exists.[4]

Origin of the Universe: the Kalam Cosmological Argument       

But let us get more specific. The Kalam Cosmological Argument[5] uses two premises and a conclusion:

1. (premise) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. (premise) The universe began to exist.
3. (conclusion) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The nature of the cause had to be external to the universe, that is, it had to transcend space and time. This means it had to be timeless (eternal) and not material. It must be exceedingly powerful to create a universe. It must also be personal, that is, capable of deciding to create a universe. All this is a good description of the theistic God.[6]

            A naturalist counterargument is that the universe has always existed. This was the belief that many philosophers and scientists held from the time of Aristotle. But in the 20^th century, the Big Bang model established itself as the Standard Model of cosmology. In this model, our universe began about 14 billion years ago. The evidence for this is very strong: our universe is expanding, which means it had to have been much smaller in the distant past. Also, background microwave radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang, was discovered in the 1960s. Since then, the Big Bang has been almost universally accepted.

            But naturalists have not given up. One proposal is the oscillating universe, in which the universe expands up to a point, but then, due to gravity, collapses in on itself. This is followed by a new Big Bang, then another Big Crunch, forever. But there are two big problems with this. The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, in which case it will not collapse. Also, the second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system (such as the universe), entropy (disorder) will increase. What level of entropy would have been necessary at the “beginning” (and there would have been no beginning!) of the process?

A more recent theory is that the universe has always existed in the form of a quantum vacuum. In this vacuum, particles randomly come into existence and then disappear again. The theory is that these random fluctuations would somehow be pulled together by “quantum gravity” (which is not well understood) to form the precursor of the Big Bang. But is this a reasonable argument? The amount of matter and energy in our universe is huge. How could enough random fluctuations occur for quantum gravity to pull together and cause the Big Bang? Moreover, why do we not observe new universes popping randomly into existence?

Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Another problem from a naturalist perspective is that the universe appears to be designed – fine-tuned – to permit life. Cosmologist Paul Davies calls this the “Goldilocks Factor”.[7] Physics tells us four fundamental forces govern matter and energy: the strong force, which binds quarks into protons and neutrons and holds the nucleus together; the weak force, which governs radioactive decay and, more specifically, governs the fusion of hydrogen into helium; the electromagnetic force, which governs the attraction between differently charged particles (such as protons and electrons) and the repulsion between same-charged particles (e.g. electrons and electrons); and gravitational force, which governs the attraction between particles and larger objects. All of these consist of variables and a constant. For example, the gravitational force is described as F = G(m₁m₂)/R², where m1 is the mass of object 1, m2 is the mass of object 2, R is the distance between them, and G is the gravitational constant. These constants are critical values, and we do not yet understand why they have the values that they do.

            John Lennox notes that if the ratio of the strong force constant to the electromagnetic force constant had been different by 1 part in 10¹⁶, no stars could have formed.[8] If the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had been greater by 1 part in 10⁴⁰, only small stars could exist.[9] Decrease the ratio by the same amount, and only large stars can exist. But both types of stars are essential for life: large stars produce the elements that the universe needs, and only small ones burn long enough to permit life to develop. There are other critical ratios as well, such as the ratio of the expansion forces and contraction forces at the Planck time (10^-43 seconds after the origin). If the ratio of the expansion forces to the contraction forces had been greater by 1 part in 10⁵⁵, the early universe would have expanded too quickly, and no stars or galaxies would have formed. If the ratio had been smaller by 1 part in 10⁵⁵, the early universe would have immediately collapsed. These improbabilities, as great as they are, are dwarfed by the entropy calculation. Sir Roger Penrose, a Nobel laureate mathematical physicist, has estimated that the probability of the universe having a sufficiently high entropy at its origin to explain its current entropy is 1 part in 10 to the power of 10¹²³.

            There are, of course, naturalistic counterarguments. One is that these constants are somehow determined by more fundamental principles, such as may someday be discovered in M Theory or String Theory. That, of course, cannot be ruled out. But it seems to be the mirror of the well-worn “God of the gaps” argument. Here, it would be a “naturalism of the gaps” – even if we do not understand it, there must be a naturalistic explanation. This is circular reasoning, not logical inference. Another possibility trumpeted more recently is the multiverse. If there are an infinite number of universes, there will have to be at least one in which the variables fall within the necessary range to support life. And sentient life would have to be in that universe. There is no evidence for a multiverse, but it is theoretically possible. Still, there are problems with this theory. A major objection is that a universe with just the right conditions for intelligent life would be far more probable if it was very small, even as small as can be filled by a single brain (the Boltzmann brain objection).[10]

Origin of Life on Earth

Naturalism assumes that life on Earth arose through natural processes. Inorganic molecules formed by chance into organic molecules, such as amino acids, which then formed into living cells with RNA (a different type of molecule altogether) and DNA. Scientists have been conducting origin-of-life research for many decades. They have not yet succeeded in creating even a very simple form of life. Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer has calculated the odds of getting a single functional protein of 150 amino acids by chance alone at one chance in 10¹⁶⁴.[11] And one functional protein is a far cry from a living cell. DNA (and its companion RNA) are information storage molecules that form the genetic code of living cells. Meyer asks how the functionally specified information in DNA could arise. Our uniform experience is that functionally specified information comes from intelligent beings, not from chance.

Some naturalists propose that life on earth was “planted” from outer space. Indeed, some meteorites have been found to contain organic (that is, carbon-based) compounds, but no functional proteins. Still, even if life on earth originated from meteors or aliens, that would raise the question of how life arose on their planet of origin, so it would only push the question backward. Philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew credits his conversion to deism to the immense unlikelihood of life arising strictly by chance.[12]

The Design of Living Creatures

Naturalists, such as Richard Dawkins, admit that living creatures have the appearance of design. But, he argues, this appearance is fallacious.[13] Instead, natural selection guides purely natural processes, such as random mutations, to create living beings with apparent design. The deleterious mutations are weeded out and the beneficial ones are kept. We see this process at work in the natural world – at least at the sub-species level. Bacteria, for example, develop resistance to antibiotics through random variation and natural selection. It is, of course, a massive extrapolation to conclude that this alone explains how living creatures went from simple one-celled organisms to complex human beings. Still, the fossil record shows conclusively that the world of plants and animals today is very different from what it was millions of years ago. If we define “evolution” as change in characteristics of living things over time, then evolution clearly has occurred.

But is the Darwinian model of natural selection working on random mutations sufficient to explain this change? Mathematical analysis suggests it is not, according to Stephen C. Meyer. He cites David Axe as having estimated that, for every short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids, there are 10⁷⁷ nonfunctional combinations. Over the course of life on the earth, there have been an estimated 10⁴⁰ individual organisms. If we take the number of individual organisms as the number of trials and divide it by the number of possible sequences, we still have 1 chance in 10³⁷. Those are very low odds! And, of course, one functional protein is not enough to create a living cell: we still have the problem of information. It is highly improbable that the functionally specified information present in the DNA of even the simplest single-celled organism could have arisen by chance.[14] Meyer also discusses the Cambrian explosion of animal life, in which new forms of animals appeared over a relatively short period of time. This would have required a simultaneous explosion of information. A fair conclusion is that unguided evolution, defined as natural selection working on random mutations, is inadequate to explain the apparent design of living creatures.

A further problem for the Darwinian model is irreducible complexity. The Darwinian model is based on numerous small changes that accumulate over time to make large changes (changes in species and higher taxonomic classifications). But numerous organs display irreducible complexity. These consist of multiple components that have no function except in combination with other components. Michael J. Behe explains the concept with the example of a mousetrap, which has only five components: a platform, a spring, a hold-down bar, a hammer, and a catch. Each of these components is useless by itself, but working together, the components form an effective system.[15]  Behe identifies some systems that display this kind of complexity: the cilium, bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting cascades.[16] The human eye is also often cited as an example of irreducible complexity. The concept of irreducible complexity is not universally accepted. Darwinists have launched severe counterattacks on it as well as on the entire field of Intelligent Design, of which it is a part. This is unfortunate. Science advances when scientists challenge existing dogma. The sharpness of Darwinists’ attacks on Intelligent Design reminds one of the Roman Catholic Church’s attacks on Galileo in the 17^th century (it has now admitted that Galileo was right).

Miracles

Since David Hume made his famous argument in the Enlightenment, naturalists have been confident that miracles are so unlikely that ANY alternative explanation is more credible than an account of a miracle. Hume defined a miracle as a violation of a natural law, and argued that our uniform experience is that natural laws are never violated. Accordingly, no account of a miracle can be credible. But C.S. Lewis disagrees. “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”[17] Even if we assume that natural laws cannot be violated, this broader definition allows for miracles to occur. A simple example should suffice. The law of gravity predicts that, if I drop a coin, it will fall to the ground. I drop a coin and it lands in my outstretched hand. Did the coin violate the law of gravity? No, I simply intervened in the process. God, if he exists, can certainly intervene in the process of natural laws, which then absorb and continue with the intervention. For example, when Jesus turned the water into wine, that was a divine intervention. But if people then drank too much of it, they would have gotten drunk, as the laws of nature would predict.

There is good reason to believe that miracles can and still do occur. New Testament scholar Craig Keener has written a two-volume scholarly work on miracles and a one volume follow-on book for the general public. Both works are carefully documented. This does not mean that all reports represent real examples of divine intervention – readers should come to their own conclusions. Perhaps the most convincing accounts are those of miraculous healings that contain the testimony of medical records before the healing and after. Some of these healings might have been spontaneous (cancer remission) or the healing of psychosomatic illnesses in response to prayer. But some are simply hard to explain.

One example is the story of Brielle Bratun, who was born with abnormally short arms. In church, her mother prayed, and Brielle’s arms grew. This case is medically documented.[18] Another case is that of Jeremiah Wiederhold. While in his mother’s womb in the third trimester, an ultrasound revealed a tumor in his heart, which would likely cause mental problems and multiple seizures daily. His parents prayed fervently. When Jeremiah was born, the doctors found no tumor, even though the ultrasound clearly showed it had existed. This case, too, is medically documented.[19] Dalia Knox was injured in a car accident and was confined to a wheelchair for more than 22 years. Her healing in a revival service was captured on video.[20] Church leaders and members vouch for her paralysis and healing.[21]

Purpose

The discussion so far does not cover all criticisms of scientific naturalism. Many could be added, such as the nature of human consciousness, morality, rationality, and the Ontological Argument. Nor has direct evidence of God and the supernatural been discussed, except for miracles. This evidence includes spiritual experiences, near death experiences,[22] demonic possession, and parapsychological phenomena, many of which have been scientifically investigated and documented. But one final, more personal critique of naturalism seems appropriate here: it assumes that there is no purpose in the universe. If the universe has no purpose, life is meaningless and absurd. Our lives will end at death, and even the universe will eventually end. It is hard to understand how anyone can find this attractive.

Defense of Christianity

The defense of Christianity has already been implied in the critique of scientific naturalism, as theism in general, and Christianity in particular, is the only reasonable alternative to it.[23] Christianity has no difficulty with the objections to naturalism raised in the critique. At the core of Christianity is the claim that God and the supernatural exist, and that God is active in the affairs of the world. This God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and personal and can easily have created the universe. Likewise, Christianity predicts that the universe would be fine-tuned to permit life, as the creation of life, and of human beings in particular, would be at the core of God’s purpose. God would not have chosen to make a universe that could not support life.[24] Similarly, the God of Christianity would have no difficulty creating life on earth, by whatever process he chose, without being constrained by random processes. Similarly, Christianity easily and directly explains the design of living creatures. God could, of course, have used mutations and natural selection to develop life, especially to ensure that all creatures fit together well in the environment. But God would not be constrained by Darwinism’s limited processes. Regarding miracles, Christianity records them in the Bible and predicts that miracles can occur if God chooses to do them.[25]

Finally, with Christianity, life has meaning, because a benevolent God has created the universe with a purpose. Our purpose as human beings is to know, love, and serve God and love our neighbor as ourselves. If Christianity is true, believers survive physical death and enjoy eternal life. Could anything be more meaningful?

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

Flew, Antony, and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Lennox, John C. Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples). Miracles : a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021.

Papineau, David. “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Shermer, Michael (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

Ward, Keith, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

---

[1] David Papineau, “Naturalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

[2] Michael Shermer (2017) “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”, Theology and Science, 15:3, 220-230

[3] Dawkins, Richard. Outgrowing God : a Beginner’s Guide. First U.S edition. New York: Random House, 2019.

[4] Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God : Doubting Dawkins. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008.

[5] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third edition. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008. p. 111 ff.

[6] Craig, ibid. 152

[7] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, e-book. Note, this book is catalogued in the U.S. as Cosmic Jackpot.

[8] John C. Lennox, Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? London: Lion Hudson, 2021 p. 149

[9] Lennox, ibid. p. 149

[10] Craig, ibid. p. 150

[11] Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. First edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HaperCollinsPublishers, 2021 p. 175

[12] Antony Flew and Roy Abraham. Varghese. There Is a God : How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

[13] Dawkins, ibid.

[14] Meyer, ibid.

[15] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box : the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.

[16] Behe, ibid.

[17]  C.S. Lewis, Miracles: a Preliminary Study. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. p. 5.

[18] Keener, Craig S. Miracles Today : the Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021. P. 46

[19] Keener, ibid. p. 41

[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNg7GWnXV_c&t=580s Accessed on Sep. 9, 2023, 2:30 p.m. (CET)

[21] Keener, ibid. pp. 51-54

[22]   Habermas, Gary R., and James Porter Moreland. Immortality: the Other Side of Death. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1992.

[23] A discussion of why Christianity is superior to other theistic worldviews, such as Zoroastrianism and Islam, would focus on the Resurrection of Jesus, but that is outside the scope of this paper.

[24] Craig, ibid.

[25] Lewis, ibid.