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

miracles were simply part of the mythological worldview that was part and parcel of biblical times.
Immanuel Kant argued that miracles are not essential to religion." But perhaps the most prolific debunker of miracles was
David Hume.
    Hume was a British empiricist (meaning he believed all
knowledge comes from the five senses) and a skeptic of the
Enlightenment. In a chapter entitled "On Miracles" in his
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he argued that, given
the general experience of the uniformity of nature, miracles are
highly improbable, and that the evidence in their favor is far
from convincing." He wrote: "A miracle is a violation of the
laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very
nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience
can possibly be imagined."`9
    In his thinking, since all of one's knowledge is derived from
experience, and since this experience conveys the absolute regularity of nature, any report of a miracle is much more likely to
be a false report than a true interruption in the uniform course
of nature. Hence, a report of a resurrection from the dead (for
example) is in all probability a deceptive report.
    Randal Keynes, the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin,
tells us that David Hume was one of Darwin's "guiding lights. "20
In keeping with Hume's guidance, Darwin "proposed an explanation for evolution that did not rely on any supernatural powers
or forces. He explained evolution naturally, that is, by using
phenomena and processes that everybody could daily observe in nature."21 Darwin was "an ardent naturalist," pure and
simple.22 He jettisoned God out the back door.

Responding to Naturalism
    A proper response to the philosophy of naturalism requires
a book-length treatment.23 For the purposes of this chapter,
however, space allows for only a few salient points. First and
foremost, naturalism can be undermined by the very science it
claims to hold in high regard. As Phillip E. Johnson says, the
one thing that might suffice to bring naturalism to its knees is
the fact that the gap is widening between naturalism and the
plain facts of scientific investigation. He suggests that "the beginning of the end will come when Darwinists are forced to face
this one simple question: What should we do if empirical
evidence and materialist philosophy are going in different direc-
tions?"24
    What would one do, for example, if hard scientific evidence
were discovered that proved beyond any doubt that the universe
is the result of intelligent design instead of just random mechanical processes? In fact, I believe we are witnessing this discovery in our own day. In chapter 8 of this book, I examine in detail
the exciting field of intelligent design theory. In my view, intelligent design may be just the thing that will punch a big hole
in the boat of naturalism.
    Beyond the scientific undermining of naturalism, the
creationist can also intelligently respond to naturalism's rejection of the possibility of miracles (such as the miracle of creation).
In what follows, I will offer four brief points in this regard.
    1. There is uniformity in the present cosmos. Contrary to
the typical evolutionist caricature, creationists do not argue
against the idea of uniform "laws of nature" in the present
cosmos, nor do they hold such laws in low regard. As theologian John Witmer put it,

    The Christian position is not that the universe is
capricious and erratic. Christians expect the sun to rise
in the east tomorrow as it always has just as everyone
else does. Christians recognize that this world is a
cosmos, an orderly system, not a chaos. More than that,
Christians agree that the regularity of the universe is
observable by men and expressible in principles or laws.
As a result Christians do not deny the existence of what
are called the laws of nature. Nor do they think that
the