There are several problems with the naturalistic explanation for life. First of all, there's the theory of spontaneous generation, that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms. But, this theory has been proven to be false by Redi and Pasteur through their experiment. Another problem would be the idea of "survival of the fittest", which is pretty self-explantory. Yet, most naturalists avoid this because then we ask, well what is determined to be the "fittest"? But it's a tauntalogical statement that doesn't say anything of consequence.
Also, a huge problem is the fossil record. They claim it provides an accurate historical accountof the macroevolution of species, yet it has no "transitional" fossils needed to fill in those gaps in evolution. Lastly, it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that everything goes from order to chaos. In the naturalistic worldview, it says the opposite, therefore it doesn't really line up with what we know to be true.
Overall, naturalism has many flaws in it and does not have a sound and convincing argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment