This is an electronic copy of the entire article.

By Dr Gary R. Habermas
Originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra 146:584 Oct-Dec (1989): 437-450.

p. 437

Idealism was the dominant philosophy in the Western world in the early 20th century, a holdover from its prominence in the previous century. Stressing the metaphysical reality of mind or spirit and the epistemological centrality of ideas, idealism stood in stark contrast to naturalism, which took its position as the dominant school of thought in the middle of this century. Naturalistic convictions often included the supreme reality of matter, the belief that nature could potentially explain all phenomena, and faith in the empirical, scientific method as the chief means of discovering facts. Such beliefs continue to exercise control on many areas of study.

One interesting facet of the history of ideas is the possibility that either new data or new ways of interpreting the data will encourage new paradigm (or world view) shifts in thinking.1 Many trends indicate that just such a major shift may now be taking place. Just as idealism gave way to naturalism earlier this century, naturalism may now be losing its position of supremacy as a world view.

Physicists Puthoff and Targ, after research at Stanford Research Institute, published Mind-Reach, whose first chapter, “When the Paranormal Becomes Normal,” appropriately asks, “Where will you be standing when the paradigm shifts?”2 The authors consider that a shift in thinking may be occurring.

1. Of special interest is Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). The present article uses the term “paradigm” to denote a world view, or an interpretive model for explaining reality.
2. Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, Mind-Reach (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1978).

p. 438

In agreement with this thesis Koestler explains that a “profound transformation of the physicist’s world view” is now taking place—a change that involves the shattering of many established scientific concepts. He holds that those who ridicule the recent studies in parapsychology are in approximately the same position as those who belittled Einsteinian physics earlier this century. A similar breakthrough in studies of the human mind may now be imminent.3

An issue of the SCP Journal was dedicated to an investigation of these changing trends. As reported by Fetcho: “Science, the health professions, and the arts, not to mention psychology and religion, are all engaged in a fundamental reconstruction of their basic premises.”4 In another article Albrecht and Alexander note the rising influence of these new developments:

In the last five years, however, both the scope and the intensity of the occult/mystical encroachment upon the consciousness of the scientific “establishment” have greatly increased. . . . Certainly the Eastern/ occult view of reality is riding on the momentum of a cultural and intellectual shift of enormous proportions—and not just in physics.5

What reasons may be given for such alleged changes in the contemporary world view? As Kuhn points out, one paradigm is often basically intolerant of change, even though nature must frequently be forced into its inflexible conception of reality. Further, contrary facts are sometimes ignored.6 Some believe that naturalists are often guilty of suppressing the facts to propagate their dogma.

A more subjective reason for change is that people are ready for a new way of thinking. When such a time arrives, a different model suddenly “appears” and begins to influence contemporary thought.7

A number of factors suggest that the influence of the naturalistic, radically empirical paradigm may be declining. Naturalism fails to give an adequate answer in four areas: methodology, the origin of life, theistic argumentation, and philosophy of the mind.8

3. Arthur Koestler, The Roots of Coincidence: An Excursion into Parapsychology (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 50.
4. David Fetcho, “In Face of the Tempest, Jonah Sleeps,” SCP Journal, August 1978, p. 3.
5. Mark Albrecht and Brooks Alexander, “The Sellout of Science,” SCP Journal, August 1978, pp. 19, 26.
6. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 24.
7. Compare Kuhn’s major thesis with that of C. S. Lewis in one of his technical works, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), esp. pp. 218-23.
8. The purpose of this article is not to develop contemporary arguments in each area, but rather to chart trends that may illustrate a general direction in recent thought. It is hoped that presenting a survey of the research of numerous scholars will acquaint the reader with a broad perspective of where new paradigms may be headed.

p. 439


The naturalistic conviction that the scientific method of empirical observation and testing is the only (or the supreme) guide to knowledge has been a popular belief in many circles. Along with this position is the view that nature’s laws can explain all phenomena apart from any deity or divine purpose. Science alone yields knowable truth and other methods are unable to reveal factual knowledge. The majority of scholars, however, hold that this methodology is much too narrow and that there are other viable ways to learn. The question here is not whether the scientific method is a means of discovering truth, for virtually all hold that it is useful in ascertaining factual data. The issue is whether naturalism is an adequate world view by which to explain all events and facts. In other words in order for naturalism to be a viable paradigm, it must account for all data because it allows for no other source. But many philosophers hold that while the scientific method and mechanistic concept of nature are useful in understanding portions of the universe, they are inadequate to explain all reality.9

Also many have pointed out that there is no empirical verification of the belief that the scientific method is the only way to know facts. That is, there is no empirical means by which one can demonstrate that the only way to learn is by scientific empiricism. A comment by Brightman, leveled against mechanism, is applicable to naturalism as a whole:

If we declare that mechanism is the sole and complete explanation of everything we are going far beyond scientific verification. . . . It is arbitrary and unphilosophical to take one aspect of our scientific experience, such as the principle of mechanism, and extend it so as to cancel the meaning of our most meaningful experiences.10

Thus one may hold that the scientific method is a superior one without being the only one. What may be the best method cannot be confused with the only truth.

Just as the verification principle failed its own test of verifiability, thereby providing a major factor in the downfall of logical positivism earlier this century, so it is now being realized that any belief in strict empiricism is largely problematic for the same reasons— such a belief cannot be verified. One cannot demonstrate that scientific empiricism is the only way to learn; to suggest that it is

9. This is not a new development in philosophy, either. For example see Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1940), p. 277.
10. Ibid., pp. 377-78; cf. p. 487.

p. 440

confuses good evidence with the only evidence. Knowable reality is broader than allowed by the naturalistic paradigm; naturalism fails as the only approach to truth. Other evidence points to a reality beyond that of the naturalistic paradigm.

Origin of Life

Naturalism cannot give an adequate account of the origin of life. Naturalism postulates that at some point life arose from nonlife. Spontaneous generation of some variety is therefore required. However, science has long rejected such a hypothesis. As such, naturalism attempts to describe the survival of the fittest without explaining the arrival of the fittest.11

Naturalistic science is unable to supply an answer to this question of life; atheistic evolution is incapable of adequately accounting for the data. Numerous scientific efforts involving probability theory have revealed that it is extremely improbable that chance could produce even the first complete set of genes and the proteins needed for minimal life. Coppedge found that even after making several concessions to chance the probability of a random sequence yielding just one gene or protein is 10 [to the power] 236. [footnote]12 Calculations by other scientists, even from a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective, similarly reveal that there is only an infinitesimal chance for such a beginning for life. The naturalistic physicist Guye spoke of a probability of 2.02 x 10 [to the power] 231 for chance dissymetry in an extremely simple protein.13 Salisbury suggested a probability of 10 [to the power] 415 for mutations accounting for a new enzyme.14 Yale biophysicist Morowitz calculated a probability of 1 chance in 10 [to the power] 339,999,866 for the chance formation of the correct bond energies for a minimal cell.15 Quastler postulated two extreme limits of the improbability of life occurring by chance. The smaller figure was 1 in 10 [to the power] 255 while the larger extreme was approximately 1 in 10 to the three trillionth power (13 digits).16

11. Ibid., p. 379.
12. James F. Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), esp. pp. 230-36.
13. Charles-Eugene Guye, reported in Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (New York Longmans, Green and Co , 1947), pp 33-34, as cited by Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 234.
14. Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, October 25, 1969, p 234, cf., Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 235.
15. Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (New York Academic Press, 1968), p. 99, cited in Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 235.
16. Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 1964).

p. 441

Naturalists typically respond that life in the universe could have occurred by chance because of the vast amount of time—about 20 billion years. However, this begs the question in favor of naturalism, and as many have pointed out, even this is not enough time. Using Guye’s probability figure, even if the possible combinations were produced at the speed of light, it would take 10 [to the power] 243 [billion years] to obtain even one protein molecule on earth!17

More recently astronomer Hoyle and his colleague Wickramasinghe concluded that there is only one chance in 10 [to the power] 40,000 that even a single enzyme could have evolved by random processes, a figure that is “statistically impossible.” It would require more attempts to form one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars in all the known galaxies. This statistic was not arrived at by guessing but by computations based on the necessary components of enzymes.

Therefore according to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, spontaneous generation is impossible, requiring a miracle. “Because of the impossibility of the chance formation and development of life anywhere in the universe”1 8 and since the universe is not eternal, they have abandoned the steady state theory Hoyle helped formulate years ago.19

Yockey studied the likelihood that naturalistic processes could account for the origin of life, which would involve some form of spontaneous biogenesis. He concentrated on explanations for the existence of information content in living organisms as contained in DNA.20 There is more information in the DNA in one human cell than there is in all the books in the Library of Congress, and that one cell contains far more information than there is human knowledge concerning the entire universe!21

Yockey concluded that the spontaneous origin of life could not account for the encoding of this tremendous amount of data.

The “warm little pond” scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life It is unsupported

17. Guye, reported in du Nouy, pp 33-34, and cited by Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 234.
18. Chandra Wickramasinghe’s testimony appears in Norman L Geisler, The Creator in the Courtroom Scopes II (Milford, MI Mott Media, 1982), pp. 148-53.
19. Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York Simon and Shuster, 1981), idem, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, November 12,1981, p. 105.
20. See, for example, Hubert p Yockey, ‘An Application of Information Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 46 (1974) 369-406.
21. Robert Gange, Origins and Destiny (Waco, TX Word Books, 1986), pp. 162-64.

p. 442

by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. . . . One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.22

True, these studies do not completely rule out naturalism. However, they do present a formidable roadblock to a rational formulation of a naturalistic theory for the origin of life.

Some naturalists hold that since life exists, naturalistic evolution must have occurred, in spite of the improbabilities. Others contend that some as yet unknown laws must have allowed life to begin without the action of any supernatural Being, again in spite of the improbabilities. These solutions beg the question. It is circular to assume naturalistic evolution to be the case in spite of the evidence against such nontheistic solutions.

Naturalism cannot account for the origin of life. Naturalism requires spontaneous generation and ignores an array of enormous odds against chance development of human life. Theistic Argumentation When theistic argumentation is brought up, a negative response is often evoked. Few care to approach the question of God’s existence by venturing into the world of abstract reasoning. Yet different avenues of inquiry have appeared in what had been treated by some as a stalemate. And again naturalism appears to be losing ground.

Time magazine noted that a “quiet revolution” taking place in philosophical circles has reopened the logical quest for a rational theism. Pointing out that science has been less presumptuous and closed minded on such issues in recent years, the article notes the revival of newly refined arguments for God’s existence, many of which utilize the “modern techniques of analytic philosophy and symbolic logic that were once used to discredit belief.”23

John Donnelly edited an anthology of essays by key philosophers in the linguistic analytic tradition who argue for a revival of certain forms of natural theology. Donnelly also points out the irony of using such philosophical techniques in this way when they had once been considered anathema to any theological formulation.24

Theistic argumentation has taken on some decidedly new fea-

22. Hubert P. Yockey, “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 396.
23. “Modernizing the Case for God,” Time, April 7, 1980, pp. 65-66, 68.
24. John Donnelly, ed., Logical Analysis and Contemporary Theism (New York: Fordham University Press, 1972), “Editor’s Preface.”

p. 443

tures in contemporary thought. Even some scholars who have not been very interested in the past are taking more notice. Rather than developing any specific case, a few recent trends will simply be noted.

For example Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, both previously nontheistic, have concluded that God must exist. To counter their own agnosticism, they concluded that one is “driven, almost inescapably” to the conclusion that a Creator is responsible for the design and spread of life in the universe. In fact Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded that these calculations conclusively demonstrate the existence of God, so much so that it can no longer be questioned on scientific grounds, for the Creator’s existence has been brought “into the realm of empirical science.”25

Yockey’s research has led others to accept God’s existence. Gange asserts that though vast quantities of information were utilized when the first living things appeared, nature itself was not the source of this complexity.26 Capitalizing on Yockey’s statement that the vast information in living systems is the same as the mathematical pattern of a written language,27 Geisler asks how such could result from a chance system. Some, however, hold that it is unjustified to “jump” from such data to God’s existence. But definite and extremely complex patterns of information proceed from intelligence. One is justified, Geisler argues, in concluding that this data proceeded, not from chance development, but from an intelligent, ordered beginning.28

Naturalism, in its attempt to explain life, must resort to some form of infinite regress. But Craig, among others, utilized the cosmological argument for God’s existence to argue cogently that infinite regress in the universe is not possible, according to the canons of both philosophy and science. For instance any infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite and therefore cannot exist. Also a temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition, but it cannot be an actual infinite.29

25. Wickramasinghe in Geisler, The Creator in the Courtroom Scopes II, pp 148-53, cf., Evolution from Space, p. 130.
26. Gange, Origins and Destiny, pp. 79-80.
27. Yockey states, “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Hubert p Yockey, “Self-Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 [1981] 16).
28. Norman L Geisler, “The Collapse of Modern Atheism,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy A Varghese (Chicago Regnery Gateway, 1984), pp. 142-44.
29. William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (New York Barnes and Noble, 1979), part II His particular form of the cosmological argument, called the Kalam argument, refers to the impossibility of infinite regression.

p. 444

Astronomy uses the expansion of the universe to date its absolute beginning, which again makes infinite regress untenable. Also the second law of thermodynamics reveals that the universe is running down, thereby pointing up that the universe is a finite number of years old. For Craig, the only way out of the dilemma is to conclude that God exists and is personal in that He chose to create the universe.30

One other approach to the existence of God should be mentioned. This is the eclectic, cumulative argument recently popularized by Swinburne, who holds that while individual deductive theistic arguments are not compelling, the total inductive effect of many of them lends probable weight to theism.31

The current revival of theistic arguments, from the analytic philosophical tradition and from contemporary science, is yet another sign of the current dissatisfaction with naturalism. Since infinite regress is untenable, these arguments take on new significance, both individually and collectively. They provide the best explanation for the existence of the universe and life, which cannot be said for the naturalistic hypothesis.

For the rest of the article go here:


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Hedonism, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. You are not the first person to make such comments. However I find that this copycat statement first pushed by Dr Dawkins is unjustified, what is very puzzling to me is that you have given me a video that suggest split in entities which is not what Christianity is about, in fact if you read carefully you will find that Christianity promotes unity of Body and soul therefore this comes out as yet again straw man argument that just has no place in this discussion. Actually Dr Flew is a world renound philosopher, as is Dr Hebermas, it is beyond belief that just anyone could come out with information that is not related to the subject and then attempt to say this proves your argument wrong. I think good dose of understanding the subject would go long way, before accusation that ones argument is incorrect. This is probably due to the fact that many times we deal with generalisation, our bad experiences and have not checked with what the Bible is saying or what the person in question is trying to say.
    It is well known fact that today, most of the philosophers of science agree that limiting our explanations to testable methods is not acceptable to science itself. I have mentioned this already, our understanding of sub atomic particles and how they behave is still incomplete we still don’t understand how universe come into existence, yet we are so bold to claim that empirical data is the only data we must and should use.
    It is extremely interesting to me that personal experience is dismissed, as non valid and therefore false. Is that logical in any science? I don’t think so, to me it looks like deliberate distortion or blind spot on the account that only authors approved data should be examined. We must not be so blind and fail to notice the obvious, you could not and I repeat you could not disprove, spiritual by using physical, that is just not scientifically falsifiable, and I’m sure now that I said it you could see the obvious shortfall of such naïve argument.

    Kind regards

  2. Eric says:

    Right on the button!

    I don’t have time to luxuriate in your most excellent article, but have bookmarked it for tommorrow. It is 11.30pm here, so it is time to watch a bit of telly and head off to sleep.


  3. What you said in a very first sentence is not a scientifically correct. I have given you number of examples like certain particles that don’t behave in a normal way i.e. their magnetism increases as they are separated bit like a rubber bund or Big Bang where you have all exiting matter come out of singularity. Now think about it, they suggest today that we must have another universe possibly quite different to this one. Most modern philosophers of science agree that this materialistic world view is driven by atheism is too restrictive and anti science. Therefore I would argue that someone to argue against this is to argue against well established “evidence” like big bang which is accepted today by all atheists.

    So which is it going to be; Science or blind faith? This is why I keep on saying that there is a great amount of faith that is involved in atheism, but this is often refuted due to dislike of the word faith. On top of that your video is arguing that two should be separated and this is contrary to what Christianity stands for. So when you consider all of that you can’t help but notice that video in question builds on false premise that does not exist. And should I not mention string theory and anything between 9 to 26 separate dimensions that is currently explored by modern science. It is nothing short of laughable when one uses materialism to disprove spiritual, and before I go any further limited knowledge and understanding we have today prevents us from making such bold claims. This either is done by ignoring other sciences or deliberately misguiding others with psycho bubble talk but mixed up with materialistic philosophy in order to disguise it as good science.

  4. I appreciate your approach but as I pointed out this is a philosophical difference not scientifically backed up data. You have completely misunderstood my point on Big bang theory, this is often accompanies with muliverses and other such like rebuttals. If we are to accept this as factual then could one of these basis separate universes not posses such thing as metaphysical substances that are part of but not separate of what we have. In fact if this is the case could we not go on to say if everything is possible is there also not a possibility of Intelligent Being that designs universes and then why not our own univers for that matter?

    I appreciate your reluctance to engage and indorse theories that are thought by Dr Dawkins and like but you should at least acknowledge that according to their theories what I said is correct. Secondly why do you tell me of for my sugesstion on inference of intelligent being that could stands outside of our universe, is this not logically consistent with the possibilities we find ourselves i.e. staring us in the face. Just because you don’t like them does not mean we should ban them from our arguments.

    On the second paragraph can I suggest you get acquainted with the subject before you make any rushed judgement. I can suggest that you read books like “A sceptics guide to atheism” by Peter S Williams and “Gods Undertaker, has science buried God?” By John C Lennox and “the Devils Delusion and scientific pretensions by another Phd in Philosophy of science David Berlinski. And for good measure can I suggest a gentlemen that holds also two PhDs one in Physics and second in Theology Alister McGrath and his book “Intellectuals Don’t need God and other modern myths”. You are however right that I should have backed this claim with supporting evidence and for that I apologise.

    On the issue of Big Bang, I appreciate your reluctance to stand hand in hand with people like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchin’s and Richard Dawkins but I assumed as you so frequently quote their sayings you would also agree with that point. Therefore your point is only valid if you are in disagreement with the group of people I mentioned above. In which case you are correct I did rush in making such judgement. However I would challenge you then to present your position as opposed to the ID theory that you so rigorously oppose. Secondly I fail to see why is my statement so difficult to understand, if you claim that material world should judge immaterial things, may I suggest that are you confusing things here? I think that your argument that I have misunderstood and veered of the subject could also mean that you missed my point and should therefore be cautious with your assertion. I did not accuse you of writing psycho bubble that is unless the author of video and you are the same person in which case I have accused you and still do. But note that our judgmental attitude is consistent with our starting points and is nothing to be ashamed of. If you are not the person in the video then please don’t take the blame when it is not attended for you. Lastly I appreciate your sneaky attempt to make me look stupid but as they say I don’t need your help with that I can make myself look stupid all on my own. I am humble enough to notice that I frequently make mistakes and I just did admit that I jumped to conclusion with my bundling you together with other atheists who hold on to Big Bang theory. However I have expanded this by asking for your clarification and what you stand for as I hate people sniping from sidelines but never being brave enough to state what they stand for apart form starting the dogma of atheism that is as I often say regurgitated second hand village pub philosophy. Note that I’m not banning people from making their assertions but note also that I will challenge and give counter arguments just as happily and with just as much enthusiasm. May I suggest that you check my answers and not makes them out into something I did not state or think of saying.


    Defend the Word

Comments are closed.