Read The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate for Free Online

beings to transcend death. The theory of evolution,
however, provides a more parsimonious account of
human origins which is based upon evidence drawn
from a wide range of the sciences.'

    Evolutionist Julian Huxley likewise asserted that in view of
the "proven" truth of evolution, man can "no longer take refuge
from his loneliness in the arms of a divine father figure whom
he has himself created."9 God is viewed as a mere invention of
human culture. Those who hold on to belief in God are simply
displaying their pitiful ignorance. Appealing to the supernatural is therefore nonsensical. We are all alone in this great big
universe, and we'd better get used to dealing with our problems
on our own.
    Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (an avowed atheist) likewise
dismissed the idea that God guides the world of nature. He
forcefully argued that no external forces propel the process of
evolution and that one simply will not find evidence for God
in the "products of nature."'° The world of nature is a closed
system of material causes and effects and can admit no external influence."
    Dismissing the reality of God has the added benefit for naturalists that they have no moral accountability to a Supreme Being.
Thomas Huxley-a champion of "aggressive secular material-
ism"'2-was personally comforted with the philosophy of naturalism and the accompanying idea that he had no God to answer
to at a future judgment. This is no doubt one of the appeals of
naturalism: freedom from the weight of moral obligation."
    Huxley was quite outspoken about his anti-God views." A
case in point is his public debate with Anglican bishop Samuel
Wilberforce. According to Michael Behe's account, the bishop
asked, "I beg to know, is it through his grandfather or grandmother that Huxley claims his descent from a monkey?" Huxley muttered, "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." Huxley
then launched into his defense by giving an exposition on naturalistic biology. Behe notes that as Huxley closed his line of
argument, he said that

    he didn't know whether it was through his grandmother
or grandfather that he was related to an ape, but that
he would rather be descended from simians [apes] than
be a man possessed of the gift of reason and see it used
as the bishop had used it that day. Ladies fainted, scientists cheered, and reporters ran to print the headline:
"War Between Science and Theology.""
No Miracles
    C.S. Lewis once wrote, "If you begin by ruling out the supernatural, you will perceive no miracles."" He was right. The
philosophy of naturalism asserts that the universe operates
according to uniform natural causes and that no force outside
the universe can intervene in the cosmos. This is an antisuper-
natural assumption that prohibits any possibility of miracles.
    Naturalists dismiss miracles in many ways. Some say the
observers of alleged miracles are simply mistaken. Others argue
that just because we don't have a present explanation for some
inexplicable event does not mean the supernatural was involved;
as we grow in our understanding of the natural processes, we
may come to a new natural understanding regarding what
many previously thought were miraculous events. Almost all
critics of miracles hold that the statistical consistency of natural law (or "laws of nature") is such that supernatural events
are impossible.
    Sometimes we come across references to the "miracles of
modern technology." Naturalists argue that if our ancestors
witnessed some of the advances we have today-the space
shuttle, cell phone, DVD player, computer, and the like-they would surely consider such things as miraculous. Naturalists thus
reason that the more scientific understanding we have, the less
we need to believe in the supernatural.

    The possibility of miracles has long been denied by naturalist and humanistic thinkers. Benedict Spinoza denied the
possibility of miracles because they are irrational. Rudolph
Bultmann said that