Modern scientists
have defined science as being atheistic and naturalistic. Any particular
scientist may personally believe in God, but he can not bring this belief
to his work. Therefore any theory on origins, no matter how scientific in
its approach, if God is in any way implied in its conclusion, is declared
to be unscientific. As a result, modern scientists have made sure that
naturalism cannot be challenged in the scientific arena.
Scientists say that all theories must be falsifiable. In other words,
there has to be a way of proving them to be wrong. Since any attempt to
prove naturalism wrong would need to have the supernatural as its
conclusion, and this is not allowed in today's science, then there is no
way for it to be falsified. Therefore it has to be questioned as to
whether naturalism it is a valid scientific theory.
Some would counter this by saying that evolution is the theory and
naturalism is simply a way of describing the evolutionary process. So it
is evolution that needs to be falsifiable and not naturalism. There is no
doubt that evolution is a theory, and therefore must be falsifiable, but
it is a theory to explain the out workings of naturalism. If evolution is
proven to be wrong, scientists would need to come up with another theory
with which to replace it. In the mean time they would still believe in
naturalism. So the theory of naturalism can stand on its own without
evolution. The theory of evolution comes along as the mechanism. So
naturalism and evolution are both theories. The over all theory of origins
is that everything came about naturally over a long period of time. The
theory of evolution is the mechanism through which naturalism works.
In order to properly evaluate a theory one must be able to compare it to a
competing one. Since supernaturalism is the only alternative to
naturalism, and it is not allowed into the scientific arena, then
naturalism cannot be properly evaluated.
If our justice system only allowed prosecutors into the courtroom, a
sizable majority of the cases would return with a guilty verdict. If we
were to add defense attorneys to the mix, then that majority would be
radically lowered. It very well could be that the reason so many people
believe in naturalism is because it is the only theory they have been
taught.
Those who support naturalism say that theories of origins which support
supernaturalism can still be taught, but they must be done so in a
religion or philosophy class. The problem with this is that everyone must
take science classes, but philosophy and religion classes are usually
optional. Therefore vastly more people end up taking science classes. In
addition, our culture values the conclusions of science more than it does
religion or philosophy. So if people are taught naturalism in science
class, and then take a religion or philosophy class that deals with
origins, because of the way we have been trained to think in today's
culture, they will tend to value what they learn in science class more
than what they learn in a religion or philosophy class.
To counter this, I think universities should offer a class in which one
half of the semester students are taught naturalism, and then tested on
their knowledge of the subject. In the other half they would be taught a
theory, such as intelligent design, (by one truly knowledgeable in it) and
tested again. The final would consist of writing a paper on which theory
they believed to be correct and why. They would not be graded on which
theory they chose, but on how well they defended their choice. This would
not only give them an alternative to naturalism, but would also give them
a means to properly evaluate it as a theory.
If naturalism is as obviously true as their proponents say, then they
should have nothing to fear from such a class. The truth is always better
seen when contrasted with that which is false. Therefore students would be
able to see, in a much clearer light, the true superiority of naturalism.
If not, then maybe some students would see its flaws and reject it. Either
way for the first time students would be getting a real scientific
education on origins, and there would finally be a way to falsify
naturalism.