Naturalism is not Science

Jan 182006

I must first thank Kyle Morse for his thoughtful column on "religion is not science," it got me thinking. However, in good conscience, I must respectfully disagree with many of Kyle's points.

Let me start by addressing the assumption that the philosophy of creationism should not be juxtaposed to the hierarchy of science in today's classrooms. This gives the illusion of an uneven playing field when in reality we are dealing with the same ideals: two worldviews.

In today's age, science has come to entail a pure naturalistic philosophy when explaining the origins of the universe. The term science originally meant the study of the natural world, and the way I see it, this philosophy of naturalism has dangerously clouded this term. Generally a worldview should give an explanation of how the universe began and naturalism states nature has somehow always existed and is able to explain everything that exists.

The worldview of creationism claims that an intelligent designer purposely formed creation and has a reason for it as well as for each and every one of us. So teaching solely naturalism or however you choose to mask it confuses science with philosophy.

The debate isn't simply Bible-thumpers versus textbooks scientists. It's taking a real unbiased look at scientific facts (what we see in nature) and then following those facts to whatever end it takes us. So then the question is why not allow schools to fairly present each side to impressionable students in science classrooms? Each is considered philosophical in nature, each take a certain degree of faith. Why not teach our children how to think instead of what to think? All things considered, creationism is hardly a defeated belief. If one is serious about true science; one must be open to following the evidence despite where it may lead.

Emily Mayfield


family and consumer sciences

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.