Implications of a Naturalistic Approach

However, as effective as the scientific method is, we need to consider the implications of working under a naturalistic paradigm. Scientists apply this methodology not only to the development of living organisms but to every aspect of our universe. Christians/theists who accept evolution because they feel the need to harmonize their theology with science are not going far enough. The only kind of god that is compatible with the scientific process is a god that has had no involvement whatsoever in the development of our universe and has never performed any kind of miracles or interacted with humanity in any way. And if that’s the god that exists, why would we even care that he exists?

Yes, more is known about the development of living things than some aspects of physics or cosmology, but the same process that has led to the present conclusions regarding life on earth will inevitably lead to similar conclusions regarding the universe as a whole.

But if the scientific process is so biased against God, how can it be so effective? After all, if God did play a crucial role in the formation of our universe, and science assumes He did not, science is simply wrong.

Well, not exactly; at least not in theory. Let’s imagine, hypothetically speaking, that object A has a 50/50 chance of being of supernatural origin. Scientists would undertake its study ignoring that 50 percent possibility and just assuming that its origins are natural. They would develop a naturalistic hypothesis, form predictions based on that hypothesis, and conduct research to determine if those predictions are correct.

In essence they would say something like this: “If object A resulted from natural causes, how would that have happened?” Once they come up with a naturalistic mechanism for the development of that object, they would ask again, “If this mechanism is correct and the object did develop in this particular way, what should we expect to find when further studying the object?”

If as the data comes in their predictions are confirmed, then chances are that the causes of object A were in fact natural. The more predictions that are confirmed, the more likely that this is true.


If, however, the data does not line up with expectations, then the hypothesis must have been incorrect, and a new naturalistic hypothesis has to be formulated. If every naturalistic hypothesis we can think of fails, then it starts becoming more and more likely that object A did not have a natural origin (although science never actually comes right out and admits this).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.