A man was crawling around looking for something. Another man walked up and asked, “What are you looking for?”
The man answered, “I dropped a dollar. Would you help me find it?”
“Sure. Where were you standing when you dropped it?”
“Over there by those bushes.”
“Then why are you looking here?”
“Because the light is better here.”
I shouldn't have to explain what makes the joke funny: it's ridiculous to search in the wrong place simply because the light is better. No rationally thinking person would do that, right? You'd be surprised. Evolutionists do it every day!
I've cited this quote before but let me remind my readers of it:
“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002
The obvious question is: why does modern science look for only “natural mechanisms”? That sounds like a bias to me. It's a bias toward naturalism where they intentionally exclude any possibility of a supernatural explanation in favor of natural one.
When Bill Nye toured the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham several years ago, their quasi-debate was captured on video. Several times in the debate, Nye made the same point as Scientific American, that science is the search for a natural explanation. At one point, while Nye was waxing on about the account from Joshua and how science does not allow miracles, Ham interrupts him and asks, “Why should I accept your definition [of science]?” Nye pauses for a moment, then, with a straight face, replies, “Because we have so much evidence for it.”
Regardless of how a person wants to define science, it does not change what is true. According to Nye, any time someone invokes a miracle, it's not science. If God created the universe in six days, then that is what happened regardless if Nye thinks it's scientific. It’s true regardless if it’s “supernatural.” Nye desperately wants people to believe that, if something isn't scientific, it's not true. I’m sorry, Nye, but there is no evidence for your definition of science. On what grounds can anyone say that every phenomenon must have a natural cause? Nowhere in the universe can methodological naturalism be observed or tested so the idea even contradicts itself. This is why they call it a tenet – a belief or principle, similar to religious dogma.
In the case of origins, I’m not sure how secular theories are any more “scientific” than creationists’ theories. We didn’t observe the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or even the origin of the natural laws that unbelievers rely on for their theories to work.
Sometimes, evolutionists ridicule creation by calling it, “magic.” It's a rather blatant attempt to make creationism sound unappealing by describing it with loaded words. I usually try to avoid using such a lazy argument myself but, in this case, I'm not sure how else to describe it. People who deny a supernatural origin of the universe are believers in poofism. They believe there was nothing, then POOF! there was everything. Ah, but their theories are “scientific” because they’re natural.
Every time I hear an evolutionist tell me there is no evidence for creation, I remind myself of Scientific American's quote. When evolutionary scientists study the issue of origins, they do so starting with the assumption that everything must have a natural explanation. They admit as much. They say it is only the natural that can be observed and tested, while the supernatural lies beyond our ability to examine it.
I see a striking similarity between the attitude of evolutionists and the man looking for his dollar. They both claim to be earnest looking for something but they both search in vain for the sake of convenience: the man in the joke searches in the light for something that was lost in the shadows and the evolutionists search only in the natural realm for something that was supernatural. It's funny when you think about it. If the miraculous explanation for the origin of the universe happens to be the correct one, it's no wonder evolutionists can't find it. They're looking in the wrong place!!
