Three Problems with a Naturalistic Explanation for Life

One problem with a naturalistic view of explaining life is the claim that everything came about by chance without a creator. This view, also known as spontaneous generation, is less credible than that of having a creator. Lois Pasteur disproved Spontaneous generation with his two flasks of meat experiment. In one set of jars (filled with meat) there was a mesh covering and in the other set there was no covering. Flies laid their eggs in the uncovered meat flasks and life eventually was born from it; and in the covered flasks no life came about, proving that life only comes from living things. Also disproving the spontaneous generation theory is the fruit flies with extra wings, which wouldn’t survive in the wild and were also created from previous life, and a creator. The odds for spontaneous generation are so great there is no way such complex organisms could have come about by such chance.

            Another problem with the naturalistic view is the issue of intelligence. According to the naturalistic view, intelligence and knowledge were created, and anything disproving them is imaginary. The theory claims intelligence and knowledge have evolved just as humans and organisms have evolved. They believe that whatever knowledge is today will be useful in the future because it will be so advanced and different. Though more things are being found out and discovered the knowledge that humans have is still the same and the way we speak is still the same, if anything our speech has declined. Intelligence has grown, but has not evolved. According to the rules, if one theory or paradigm is proven false, a new paradigm must take its place, the theory is either made up or further investigated. Which is the same knowledge and intelligence further looked into.

            Also a large problem with the naturalistic view is the debate of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Natural selection, making something better and stronger for living circumstances makes an animal better suited for the survival of the fittest theory, only the best are adapted survive. With the example of the Galapagos finches, the finches adapted and during droughts and according to their habitat but also adapted back to their old traits (beak sizes) as their habitats readjusted back to normal. This disproves survival of the fittest because after the finches’ beak size had changed, they also changed back to their old beak size because it was in their DNA. DNA cannot be altered to create a new species. If mutations had created all the species there are today then why are mutations frowned upon now and why can something that is mutated not survive on its own? All in all, the naturalistic theory of explaining life proves to be very faulty and has many gaps in its explanation. With the intricacy of life, it is easily detected that God is the creator of life.