Introduction

It is in human nature to derive inspiration from nature. Take, for example, the restoring feeling of awe one may experience when observing the aurora borealis on a clear, starry night or enjoying a grand view of the mighty mountains of Grand Teton.1 Or consider tendencies toward biomimicry in architecture and engineering2, and the passion for naturalistic artwork and design.3Apparently, human-beings are easily enthralled with the wonders of the natural world, which is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the awe and drawing one feels in response to nature is a partial response to the revelation of God, as creation is telltale of His existence (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, English Standard Version). But, without adequate shepherding, “The modern scientist has lost God amid the wonders of His world”4, placing faith in the methods of science alone (sola scientia), and, as a result, accepts a mistaken identity not only for their Creator, but for themselves, which keeps them separated from God (Acts 17, Romans 1:22-25, ESV).

Scientific Naturalists insist on a world where there is no God because their worldview is founded in materialism.5 It is often expressed that faith is not required, especially faith in anything supernatural, because everything in the natural world can be understood through the scientific method.6 Clarification of the concept of faith will show that the scientific naturalist possesses faith and given the inadequacies of the scientific method to provide full comprehension of reality, it will be argued that the scientific naturalist’s desire to understand the natural world can be accomplished through Christianity.

However, before the case can be made for Christianity, it would be wise to appeal to scientific naturalism via intelligent design—meeting the worldview on common ground, nature, setting the stage for general theism. Then, according to the spirit of Christian evangelism, the formulated argument must directly interface Christian theology (Matthew 28:20, Mark 16:15, Acts 10:42, Philippians 1:18, ESV). An eclectic method, as modeled by Paul (Acts 17, ESV) and that which “Augustine, Anselm, and Pascal made use”7, is a holistic apologetic strategy that is useful to exhibit the restrictiveness of the scientific naturalist worldview, and with support from intelligent design, a case for faith, and a correlation of Scripture to nature, an argument may be formulated proposing that scientific naturalists are well situated to accept Christianity.

Analysis—What Is Scientific Naturalism?

Naturalism, as defined by Michael Ruse is “an approach to, or understanding of, our world that makes no reference to a God or gods.”8 Michael Shermer elaborates by defining scientific naturalism as “the principle that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral, and social phenomena.”9 Scientific naturalism, therefore, is a worldview where sole reliance is placed on human-derived methods (i.e., scientific method) of exploring and explaining the natural world, which not only includes mathematics and natural sciences (i.e., chemistry, biology, geology, etc.), but also social sciences (i.e., sociology, philosophy, history, etc.).

There are two popularly accepted variants of scientific naturalism: metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.10 Metaphysical naturalism rejects supernatural beings and phenomena from methods and procedures concerning the complete explanation of the natural world, many times directly refuting theism altogether.11 Whereas, methodological naturalism does not reject but omits any supernatural beings and phenomena from methods and procedures concerning observation and inference of the natural world, upholding that the natural world is discoverable through the scientific method.12 For the sake of this paper, these two distinctions will be mostly unrecognized, homogenized as scientific naturalism.

Critique—The Primary Issue with Scientific Naturalism

While scientific naturalists, such as Michael Shermer, beseech fervently that scientific naturalism is well suited to provide a “complete understanding of the cosmos and everything in it”13 it is important to consider the limitations of the scientific method regarding metaphysics: “…each special science investigates only part of the whole, or a limited field of the spatiotemporal reality…there is more than the physical reality and that the naturalistic approach cannot properly address such non-physical or personal experiences.”14The scientific method, despite scientific discipline, has limitations when trying to understand metaphysical themes such as purpose (i.e., why humans exist) and mind (i.e., the ability to think rationally)—it does not successfully encompass the entire person or the human experience. Inspired by Anselm’s Greatness Principal illustration of the painter found in Proslogion, an analogy of a painting and a spectating aesthete may help illuminate the shortcomings of the scientific method.

The Painting & The Aesthete

A painter created a painting depicting a scene of a woman handing a girl a cone of ice-cream from an ice-cream trolly, set in the late 19^th century. Sometime after the paintings production, an aesthete found it in a museum warehouse. Upon observation, the aesthete took note of the type of medium used as well as the dimensions of the frame the canvas was stretched upon. The aesthete then described the colors of paints used. Further detailed inspection revealed two hairs stuck within the paint—a long and thin, yellowish hair and a course, short brown hair. So intrigued, the aesthete decided to enhance her observation through use of various instrumentation. She was able to verify the medium (acrylic on canvas) and date the painting to about 175-years of age. She also discovered that the yellow hair was from a female human and the brown hair belonged to a male primate.

Accounting for human error within the methods of data collection and the error associated with the various instrumentation used, the aesthete counts her data as true facts (i.e., the paint is acrylic, the brown hair is from a primate, etc.). However, when it came to inference, the aesthete fabricated various explanations, attempting to correlate the facts to arrive at a how and why according to her best understanding. But unbeknownst to the aesthete, true reality was not fully realized. After much contemplation, the aesthete figured the yellow hair belonged to the painter, a woman, who fancied the 19^th century aesthetics and enjoyed ice-cream on occasion with her daughter hence the imagery in the painting. The aesthete was stumped as to how or why a primate’s hair came to be encased in the paint, but given the desaturated hues of color she figured it had been in storage for a long time, perhaps coming in contact with another museum item, maybe a gorilla display.

The reality is that the painting was created by a young zookeeper who, on his breaks at work, enjoyed the company of his best friend, a chimpanzee. He kept a lock of his mother’s blonde hair in his breast pocket since she passed. And being unmarried, had a fancy for the zoo’s ice-cream lady and dreamed of having a family with her someday. He actually created the painting on commission, however, for a woman who lived across the street from him. The painter found the image ironic and taking it as a sign had asked the zoo’s ice-cream lady on a date. After some time, they got married and had a daughter. When the daughter grew into adulthood, the, now old, zookeeper re-acquired the painting from the woman who originally purchased it, and he gifted it to his daughter. His art eventually became quite popular, indeed famous, and when the painter passed, his daughter decided to donate the painting to a museum.

Though accurate and true facts were derived from the aesthete’s observations, true reality simply was not (nor could not possibly) be realized. This is not to say science is futile—the capabilities of science are an outstanding tool for their purpose. But the limitations of the scientific method for anything other than that are obviously stifling. Thus, these limitations present an undeniable issue for scientific naturalists claiming that the scientific method will yield a complete apprehension of the entire universe and the natural systems within that possess metaphysical qualities. Therefore, accepting scientific naturalism as a primary lens in which to perceive the world is significantly reducing one’s frame of reference.

Critique—Secondary Issues with Scientific Naturalism

Beside the shortcomings of the scientific method in explaining metaphysics, doctrine of scientific naturalism has discrepancies in other areas as well. For example, if “human reason is the result of a blind (i.e., purposeless) and nonrational process [i.e., through neo-Darwinian evolution], then the deliverances of human reason—our thoughts—cannot be the results of rational inference and are therefore not trustworthy.”15 In short, if brains are a result of natural selection, then the mind cannot be trusted as rational. If the mind cannot be trusted for rationality, then any product produced thereof cannot be trusted for truth, such as scientific inquiry. But this is obviously untrue as humans are adept in coherent thought. Furthermore, the pure and total rejection of the possibility of something is unscientific—just because a thing cannot be measured, does not mean it is nonexistent. Therefore, rejection of supernatural beings and phenomena is unscientific—it is a metaphysical claim requiring other means of assessment. Finally, there exists evidence suggesting intentional, top-down design found within natural systems as opposed to the bottom-up, “purposeless” process of evolution by natural selection. Enter, intelligent design.

Support from Intelligent Design

It is important to note that intelligent design is not a version of “biblical creationism” but an “evidence-based” theory.16 For example, “intelligent design does not reject ‘evolution’” defined as “’change over time’ or even universal common ancestry…”17, and by deduction one can assess that intelligent design holds to geologic time (or deep time) as well. In this way, intelligent design shares much ground with scientific naturalism. The most remarkable factor differentiating intelligent design from scientific naturalism is the concept of design—that because the natural world exhibits many examples of intentional design, from micro systems (i.e., code-like formatting of DNA and irreducibly complex organelles) to macro systems (i.e., the fine-tuning of Earth and the Universe), there is a strong indication of a top-down creation by “an actual intelligence—a conscious and rational agent, a mind—as opposed to a mindless, materialistic process.”18 It is also fascinating to learn that “many biologists now acknowledge serious deficiencies in current strictly materialistic theories of evolution”19 giving room to theories such as intelligent design.

It is tempting to utilize arguments for intelligent design, such as irreducible complexity of micro-biological systems20 or mathematical improbabilities of population genetics21 to persuade those who hold to the scientific naturalist worldview toward Christianity due to the theme of nature—a “fight fire with fire” sort of approach. However, it is clear that intelligent design does not venture the path of religion. And, after this brief survey, it would appear the scientific naturalist and the advocates for intelligent design both find themselves on the same trail regarding faith in the Christian God.

The Problem with Intelligent Design

Although intelligent design is conducive to promote one’s faith to general theism, it falls short in making the case for faith in the one true God of all, Yahweh. Dr. Behe himself concedes, “my argument [for intelligent design]…is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God…[the] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far…the identity of the designer is left open.”22 Thus, it appears that the shepherds of intelligent design lead their sheep to the seemingly satiating pastures of science then leave them to the lions and bears. But this is strategic. The danger in advocating for design while also drawing parallels to Christianity, as the early modern apologist, William Paley, did, is that science may discover a means to explain evolution by a mechanism (other than natural selection) which directly refutes the notion of top-down design by a Creator, turning the argument for intelligent design into a “god of the gaps” fallacy. So, it important to understand that the function of “the arguments for God’s existence are not themselves meant to satisfy the deepest longings of our souls, but rather to prompt further search for the One who does.”23

The main function of creation is to attest to God. What good is the inspection of nature either as one holding to intelligent design or scientific naturalism if that inspection leads anyplace other than a real revelation of the One who created the world? So, to directly advocate for Christianity, the argument must extend past external evidence to intrinsic evidence bearing in mind the concept of top-down, intelligent design by a Creator.

A Case for Faith—The Scientific Naturalist Has Faith

Thus far, it has been established that scientific naturalism contains sufficient shortcomings, urging the search for a more comprehensive worldview. It has also been briefly demonstrated that there exists natural evidence supporting the existence of God. As modeled by Paul the Apostle, it is necessary to introduce certain excerpts of Scripture to parallel the material covered thus far. But first, a case will be made for faith.

The scientific naturalist, in all actuality, is well-suited to accept Christianity. Why? Because they have faith—it is simply misplaced. A definition of faith is necessary. “Faith is not, by itself, a set of beliefs, or a proposition, or even a claim”24 rather faith is trust and loyalty to some thing or someone. Faith insinuates action. Faith requires that folks “venture or risk ourselves and our well-being to some thing or person.”25 It becomes evident then that the scientific naturalist has faith in “certain methodologies, prior theories and data, and [their] empirical and mental faculties.”26 In other words, the science-minded place faith in physical, chemical, and biological assumptions (those things that cannot be known but must be assumed in order for science to be effective), past data and inferences of historic research, and the abilities and limitations of their own minds.

Now, it is established that the scientific naturalist possesses some degree of faith. But how is it misplaced? Paul, in Acts 17 (ESV), does not reprimand the Greeks at Athens for their misguided worship of idols of natural things, artificial gods, and the unknown. Instead, he encourages them in their religiosity, recognizing their hunger and thirst for knowledge and understanding. Indeed, they have a wonderful ground in which to reorient their minds, hearts, strength, and souls from the natural and unknown to the Truth if he could just help them see how close they were to God. Considering “there is nothing unique about Christian faith other than the object of that faith”27 the scientific naturalist’s faith is vigorous, albeit misplaced. Therefore, given the limitations of scientific naturalism and the level of faith already within the scientific naturalist, it is essential that a mechanism be identified to segue the science-oriented interlocutors to arrive at the revelation of Christianity. Therefore, a brief survey of nature-oriented Scripture is in order.

Corresponding Scripture to Nature

Scientific Naturalists understand that the natural world is intelligible. But is this not a miracle? Why is it that human minds (supposedly derived from irrational processes of evolution) have the capacity to understand perplexing subjects such as genomics or astrophysics, among many other bemusing topics? Even Einstein concedes, “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility…the fact that [the world] is comprehensible is a miracle.”28 Surely this reality, in combination with the teleological evidence discussed above, is an indication that people are somehow related to a creator God.

Consider again the desire to design. From biomimicry to artificial intelligence to skyscrapers, humans are bent on creating things, and in the case of artificial intelligence—creating in their own image. What other animal displays such creativity? Genesis (1:26, ESV) then becomes very interesting— “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” As for the state of the natural world, when scientists radiometrically date material they measure the decay rate of various parent isotopes; when metals or rocks become oxidized, they begin to rust becoming unstable; the skin of the human body loses it elasticity and becomes thin with time, easily torn and difficult to heal as it breaks down. It appears that humans exist within a world of decay—nothing lasts forever. Once again, The Fall described in Genesis as well as Jesus’ words in Matthew (24:35, ESV) become interesting— “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” As for the origin of everything, consider the Big Bang and the nothingness that was before the great singularity that gave rise to the entire cosmos, Genesis (1:3, ESV) fascinates once more— “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

As for the natural world and the way in which it inspires and restores, instilling great awe regarding its magnificence, is it not possibly onset by an internal understanding that “[God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20, ESV)? The tree from which Eve ate, was it not that of knowledge—the very fruit of which cost mankind eternity with God, thrusting creation into sin and decay? Is it not yet still knowledge that performs as a stumbling block for those in pursuit of truth, keeping them separated from God? How much evidence, therefore, is enough? Consider the story of Thomas and Jesus.

After Jesus was crucified, he rose from the dead after three-days “present(ing) himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days” (Emphasis added, Acts 1:3, ESV). Thomas, one of the twelve disciples, missed an interaction between Jesus which was brought to his attention by his friends— “the other disciples told [Thomas], ‘we have seen the Lord’” (John 20:25, ESV). To which Thomas replied, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (emphasis added, John 20:25, ESV). A week and a day later, Jesus appeared to the disciples while Thomas was with them, and having placed his fingers in his wounds, Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28, ESV)! Jesus then told him, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed” (emphasis added, John 20:29, ESV). The evidence is plentiful, but there is something to be said for faith over reason.

Conclusion

Considering the presence of design in nature and a developed understanding of faith, the case can more effectively be made for Christianity by correlating Scripture with natural phenomena. The limitations of the scientific method, support from intelligent design, the scientific naturalist’s capacity for faith, and correlations of Scripture to nature are valid evidence for the scientific naturalist to consider. If they could take a leap in understanding that “there must be a positive reciprocation if this secret drawing of God is to eventuate in identifiable experience of the Divine”29, then it is likely they will land upon the revelation of God, accepting Christianity.

Bibliography

Aguilar-Planet, Teresa, and Peralta, Estela. “Innovation Inspired By Nature: Applications of Biomimicry In Engineering Design”. Biomimetics 9, no. 9 (2024): 523.

Attfield, Robin. “Grammars Of Creativity”. Heythrop Journal 61, no. 3 (2019): 381-392.

Bullivant, Stephen, and Ruse, Michael. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Einstein, Albert. “Physics And Reality”. (1936).

Forrest, Benjamin K., and D. Chatraw, Joshua. The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020.

Gould, Paul M., Dickinson, Travis, and Loftin, R. Keith. Stand Firm: Apologetics And The Brilliance of The Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.

Kim, Junghyung. “A Qualification of Methodological Naturalism: Brightman and De Vries Revisited”. Theology And Science 20, no. 2 (2022): 166-178.

Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design. United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.

Poulsom, Martin. “The Pros and Cons of ‘Intelligent Design’”. Forum Philosophicum 13, no. 2 (2008): 177-195.

Sharma, Anita, and Shyam, Vishal. “From Stress Buster to Mood Elevator: Roll of Mother Nature in Well-Being”. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 14, no. 4 (2023): 474-478.

Shermer, Michael. “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism”. Theology And Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 220-230.

Sweiss, Khaldoun A., and V. Meister, Chad. Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012.

Tozer, A.W. The Pursuit of God. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2015.

---

1 Anita Sharma and Vishal Shyam, “From Stress Buster to Mood Elevator: Roll of Mother Nature in Well-Being,” Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 14, no. 4 (2023): 474.

2 Teresa Aguilar-Planet and Estela Peralta, “Innovation Inspired by Nature: Applications of Biomimicry in Engineering Design,” Biomimetics 9, no. 9 (2024): 523.

3 Robin Attfield, “Grammars of Creativity,” Heythrop Journal 61, no. 3 (2019): 382.

4 A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2015), 19.

5 Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse, The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013), 385.

6 Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 221-222.

7 Khaldoun A. Sweiss and Chad V. Meister, Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), 37.

8 Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse, The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013), 383.

9 Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 221.

10 Ibid.

11 Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse, The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013), 383.

12 Junghyung Kim, “A Qualification of Methodological Naturalism: Brightman and De Vries Revisited,” Theology and Science 20, no. 2 (2022): 168-169.

13 Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 222.

14 Junghyung Kim, “A Qualification of Methodological Naturalism: Brightman and De Vries Revisited,” Theology and Science 20, no. 2 (2022): 169.

15 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 46.

16 Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life And The Case For Intelligent Design. (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 338.

17 Ibid.

18 Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design. (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 339.

19 Ibid, 337.

20 Khaldoun A. Sweiss and Chad V. Meister, Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), 100-101.

21 Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 245.

22 Martin Poulsom, “The Pros and Cons of ‘Intelligent Design’,” Forum Philosophicum 13, no. 2 (2008): 180.

23 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 36.

24 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 30.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 30.

28 Albert Einstein, “Physics and Reality,” (1936), 351.

29 A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2015), 18.