Naturalism: A Not-so-Natural Theory

UTT Blog Post #4 - Naturalism

Today we live in a world dominated by secular thought, education, and science. As a result, public education is saturating its students with the idea of evolution – a naturalistic and atheist explanation for the origins of life. Naturalism states that the life we see today has been produced as a result of genetic mutations that have become permanent by the process of natural selection.  While often blindly accepted as fact, this theory, in truth, possesses many flaws, which discredit its claims.

First, Naturalism depends on randomly occurring genetic mutations as “the raw material needed for evolution.” Ironically, genetic mutations are rarely helpful to a species. Rather, they are usually detrimental. In fact, genetic mutations in humans often manifest themselves in handicaps. Therefore, even if evolution were to occur based on survival of the fittest, natural selection would not favor species born with genetic mutations, being that they rarely prove advantageous for survival.

Second, the theory of Naturalism relies on the idea macroevolution to support its claim that “fundamentally new organisms and plants” have been produced as a result of evolution. This means that Naturalists believe that the varieties of species we see on earth today have all resulted (evolved) from common ancestors. One problem with the idea of macroevolution is that Naturalist often argues its validity with evidence of microevolution. For instance, many Naturalists have stated that the Galapagos finches may be the best example of natural selection at work in nature. They claim that varying beak sizes amongst the birds on the islands are evidence of evolutionary adaptation to varying habitats and food sources. While this may be true to an extent, Naturalists overlook the fact that these changes are small, temporary, and changing (“oscillate back and forth”). In this way, the variation of beak shapes and sizes amongst the Galapagos finches is simply an example of adaptation or microevolution. Either way, this cannot be used as a valid argument for macroevolution, thus discrediting the Naturalist argument.

Lastly, Naturalism’s main flaw is its denial of any intelligent design as the source behind life. In doing so, Naturalists are forced to take the stance that all life and the structure of life are random. However, when looking at the complexities of life, such as the cell, they have a difficult time defending their argument due to its precise operations and specific functions, all of which have both a purposeful and essential existence. Naturalists have even admitted their inability to explain the existence of DNA. Interestingly enough, their argument for natural selection is dependent on its existence.

Overall, Naturalisms dependence on gene mutations as a basis for evolution, its attempts to prove macroevolution with evidence of microevolution, and its attempts to deny all evidences of design in life, debase this argument and render in invalid.

I Didn't Mean to be Mean...Does That Justify the Means?

UTT Blog Post #3 - Marxist Ethics

Marxism, based on the idea of dialectical materialism, makes the conjecture that the end justifies the means. While a seemingly ridiculous statement to the majority of people who judge an outcome based on the ethics of the process used to achieve it, this idea makes complete sense in the context of a Marxist society. Because Marxism essentially believes that whatever benefits the Communist party is “right” or “morally correct,” then its categorizing of actions as such is dependent not on the actions themselves, but rather their context or intent. So long as one’s actions are carried out to further the Communist party, they are considered “right” or “morally sound” based on Marxist ethics. On the other hand, actions that hurt the party are deemed “wrong” or “evil.” For example, the action of committing murder is not considered right or wrong in and of itself. Rather, its morality is dependent on the context in which it was committed. The murder of an Anti-Communist rebel would be considered morally sound, as it is considered a service to the party. However, murder of a party member or leader would be considered morally wrong due to its detriment to the party. This illustrates how the idea that the end justifies the means plays out in a very practical way within the scope of Marxist ethics.

As a Christian, I know that this claim cannot be true due to the existence of absolute morals. Because the belief that “the end justifies the means” ultimately states that the morality of an action is circumstantial, relative, and based on its outcome, it is contradictory with Biblical ethics. An action cannot be both a moral absolute and morally relative. Therefore, Marxist ethics cannot coexist alongside Biblical truth.

A Note to Nathan

UTT Blog Post #2 - Karma

Nathan,

To fully understand karma, you must understand that this ethics system, unlike many in today’s society, is based on the idea that universal rights and wrongs exist. Furthermore, it is important to observe how karma defines what is right and what is wrong. According to the law of karma, the right choice is that which will bring happiness, pleasure, or fulfillment. This is where a major inconsistency in the law of karma occurs. The law states that a universal (absolute) standard of morality exists. Yet, it also conjectures that the morality of choices is determined by the happiness these decisions produce. Happiness, however, is a subjective means of measurement. What makes each individual happy and what they interpret to equivocate to happiness varies from person to person. In this way, the law of karma contradicts itself by stating that morality is both absolute and subjective to human opinion.

In addition, karma cannot answer the commonly asked question: Why do bad things happen to good people? Because the law of karma states that everything that occurs in life is a result of past choices, karmic ethics has a difficult time justifying unexplainably unfortunate events that plague morally upright people. Beyond not being able to answer this question, the law of karma cannot even make sense of it. First, the question itself is contradictory to the idea of karma. Most importantly, the way in which karmic ethics would define “bad things” and “good people” is subjective to the choices that make each individual happy.

In this way, karmic ethics is in fact a very self-centered belief system which has simply been disguised in universal absolutes.

Nathan, I hope that you will consider both what you know about karma and the information that I have recently shared with you in order to make an educated decision of your belief in the existence of the law of karma. I hope that you now understand the play as a whole a bit better.

In Him,

Madeleine St. John

You Can't Handle the Truth!

UTT Blog Post #1 - Absolute Morals

The idea that there are no moral absolutes is one commonly found in our society today. While it is a difficult question to approach, it is also one that, as Christians, we must address in defense of our faith.

If I were to encounter someone who suggested that moral absolutes do not exist I would respond by asking them where or not that idea is true. If they say "yes" then they would be contradicting their own argument. However, if they were to respond by saying "no," their argument would lose validity. Therefore, the idea that no moral absolutes exist can be deconstructed with a simple "yes or no" question.

However, the idea of moral absolutes goes beyond logic. Morals, existing within what some would consider the realm of supernatural, are not tangible in the physical world. This means that only the effects of logic can be seen. In this way, many who do not believe in moral absolutes use differing personal views, cultural practices, and society's definition of crime to support their idea.
They believe that differing actions proves differing standards of morality. What this argument does not take into account is conscience and sinful nature. If moral absolute truly did not exist then the debate over such would most likely not exist. Furthermore, if moral absolutes do not exist, then, subsequently, there is no purpose in establishing the difference between "good" and "evil," even on an individual basis because they too do not exist. It is the consciences that God created each human being with that indicate that good and evil, right and wrong, do exist and are active forces on earth. I would respond to this postmodernist’s argument by stating that differing actions and beliefs can be explained by sinful nature. In our sin, people often become immune to their conscience or have the power to defy it. Sinful nature is what has corrupted this world and is continuing to do so as the driving force behind the argument supporting postmodern relativism.