Is Naturalism More Scientifically Valid Than Creationism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vanmorph
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The email presents a critique of naturalism, equating it with creationism and arguing against the spontaneous formation of the universe and life. It invokes the law of conservation of mass and energy, suggesting that matter cannot be created or destroyed without an energy source that must have originated from somewhere. The author highlights the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, asserting that the existence of varying temperatures in the universe indicates that it could not have always existed in its current state. Additionally, the email posits that life is a temporary state, with biology ultimately succumbing to chemistry, which is portrayed as a more stable and less complex state. The argument emphasizes a perceived lack of scientific evidence for spontaneous formation, suggesting that the scientific community's conclusions are merely speculative in the absence of divine intervention.
vanmorph
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi. I just wanted to ask experts on here for their opinion on the following email I received. Thanks in advance to all respondents.

The email reads:

"Naturalism is a biased worldview just like Creationism. Actually there is a catch 22 when it comes to the formation of the universe as well as the spontaneous formation of life. I will try to give examples and not just give generalities. The law of conservation of mass and energy says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is possible to use energy to create matter, but that energy would have to come from somewhere. It could not always have existed and let me tell you why. We still have hot and cold in the universe. If it had always existed, the second law of thermodynamics would have made everything the exact same temperature. The universe itself is a closed system and yet there are still suns burning and frozen comets. Saying those were always there is like finding a cup of hot coffee and assuming it had always been hot and always would be. So it had to come from somewhere. But where? What existed before empty space was created?

Also, life is simply biology fighting its inevitable return to chemistry. Chemistry then is death. It is more stable. Every single natural law we have says things are going to go from more complex, to less complex. We have no other scientific example of something spontaneously forming. Thinking it could is ridiculous. But why is that ignored? You cannot tell me that scientists saw all the evidence for it and came up with that conclusion. It of course it their best guess if God did not do it, but the evidence is not on their side."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Religion is not discussed here.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...

Similar threads

Back
Top