Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Apologetic-Application-Paper

1. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
An Apologetic Application Paper on Scientific Naturalism
Submitted to Dr. Robert Talley,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
APOL 500-B01
Introduction to Apologetics
by
Edward Burgess Jr.
(Student ID # L24953022)
September 7, 2019

2. Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................1
Summary of Scientific Naturalism.............................................................................2
An Evaluation of Scientific Naturalism.....................................................................6
An Evaluation of the Christian Worldview ...............................................................9
A Defense of the Christian Worldview....................................................................12
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................15
Bibliography.............................................................................................................17

3. 1
Introduction
Today in the Western world, people live in a day-and-age where technological advances
offer many joyful delights, medical breakthroughs are helping people live longer, people are
more educated than ever, and the new inventions of electronic gadgets offer an almost endless
array of personal comforts. While the vast majority of people living in the West today enjoy
these benefits almost unanimously, the unifying ideology across the board is scientific
naturalism, that is, belief in a naturalistic worldview. According to this worldview, the natural
world is all there is, was, and ever will be.1
The theory of evolution is “king” and the scientific
method is the only correct epistemological methodology for making sense of the natural world,
which in turn, begs the following questions. Is this worldview the best system for interpreting
the scientific data and making sense of the natural world? Does this worldview deliver the best
results? Will this worldview be able to stand up against the scrutiny of objective criteria?
In the course of the following study, the author will begin by providing a summary of
scientific naturalism as the predominant worldview. In this section of the study, the author will
examine the following: (1) its view of ultimate reality, (2) its source of ultimate authority, (3) its
epistemology, (4) its view of human beings, and (5) its source of moral authority. Secondly, the
author will then evaluate the philosophical framework of scientific naturalism. In this section of
the paper, the author will examine the following features of scientific naturalism: (1) does this
worldview explain what it ought to explain, (2) is this worldview logically consistent, (3) does
this worldview have factual adequacy, and (4) is this worldview existentially viable. Thirdly, the
author will evaluate Christianity as a viable worldview. In this section of the study, the author
will use the same criteria that was used to examine scientific naturalism. Fourthly, the author
1
J. P. Moreland, “What is Scientific Naturalism?” Focus on the Family. 2004, (accessed on September 8,
2019). https://www.boundless.org/faith/what-is-scientific-naturalism/.

4. 2
will provide a rational defense in support of the Christian worldview. In this section of the
paper, the author will offer a three-fold argument in order to defend and endorse the Christian
worldview. Lastly, the reader will be provided with a concluding statement by the author. With
this understanding in view, the author will show that scientific naturalism has some fundamental
flaws when evaluated objectively and that the Christian worldview proves to be a better system
when interpreting the scientific data.
Summary of Scientific Naturalism
View of Ultimate Reality
In the worldview known as scientific naturalism, ultimate reality can be reduced to what
is observable in the natural world. C. S. Lewis makes the following observation, naturalists are
people who believe nothing else exists except nature itself.2
According to this perspective, this
means that nothing else exists outside, above, or beyond the frame-work of nature. In other
words, nothing transcends the reality of the natural world. Therefore, nature can be described as
a closed box with no doors or no windows, so to speak. There is simply no way to gain access
into this system from the outside. Everything that exists must exist within the system of nature.
On the basis of this presupposition, there is no room for a transcendent God, especially, the God
of the Bible. However, even if a god were to exist within the framework of this system, he could
only exist within the system (not outside of it), and in that sense, God Himself would have to be
equally dependent on nature for his existence, as well.3
So, according to this worldview, God is not only dependent on nature, he is also
contained within it. Now, this begs the following question: if nature is an effect and if nothing
2
C. S. Lewis, “Miracles.” in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, 1974), 305.
3
Ibid., 308.

5. 3
or no one can transcend the total system, and if everything is interlocked within nature, then,
what caused this effect? Instead of naturalism admitting that something must exist in and of
itself outside of the system of nature, philosophical naturalism forces its adherents to postulate
that God emerged from the same natural process in which nature itself was born. Therefore,
nature is the god of naturalism, because everything came into being by the sheer power of
nature.4
Therefore, Lewis comes to the following conclusion, this type of god would fall into the
category of pantheism, because if everything owes its existence to natural processes, and if
nature itself is god, then god is all.5
Unfortunately, this is the only kind of god scientific
naturalism could ever accept via their worldview. So, if anyone attempted to explain the origin
of the universe as the result of a supernatural Being, that is, a self-existent, self-sustaining, all-
powerful Being, who by his very nature transcends the natural world, the idea of such a concept
would have to be rejected.
Source of Ultimate Authority
The source of ultimate authority for scientific naturalism is natural selection, or to put
more precisely, the theory of evolution. Ever since the publication of Origin of Species6
by
Charles Darwin in November of 1859, there has been a seemingly endless argument over the
interpretation of the empirical data by scientist and theologians.7
While Darwin’s theory of
4
J. P. Moreland, “What is Scientific Naturalism?” Focus on the Family. 2004, (accessed on September 8,
2019). https://www.boundless.org/faith/what-is-scientific-naturalism/.
5
Lewis, Miracles, 323.
6
This is the abbreviated name of Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
7
P. P. T. Pun, “Evolution,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd
ed., Walter A. Elwell ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 415.

6. 4
biological evolution was not readily accepted by the scientific community in his day,8
over the
last couple of centuries, however, the theory of evolution has become so pervasive in the
scientific community, that if any scientist appealed to a higher authority for explaining the
natural world, they would run the risk being ostracized by colleagues and reputable universities.
Therefore, in the scientific community the theory of evolution is “king.” In fact, this theory is so
central to the naturalistic worldview that if the theory of evolution were removed from the
equation, scientific naturalism would cease to exist.
Epistemology
Almost all naturalists believe that the only way to make sense of the natural world is by
utilizing the scientific method. This epistemological method consists of the following eight
steps: observation, asking a question, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, testing the
hypothesis, making conclusions, reporting, and evaluating.9
This golden standard of
investigation can be called the hallmark of modern science. Concerning the primacy of the
scientific method, Bush makes the following observation, “truth is discoverable or at least
confirmable by and only by the naturalistic scientific method of research.”10
Almost everyone
living in the modern world is taught this from a very early age. The sad reality is that this
method of investigation will continue to be reinforced in the child’s thinking throughout his or
her school years. It will be so ingrained in their thinking that by the time that child reaches
8
L. Russ Bush, The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in An Evolutionary Age (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H
Publishing Group, 2003), 29.
9
________ Sciencing, “What Are the 8 Steps in Scientific Research” (accessed on September 20, 2019).
https://sciencing.com/what-are-the-8-steps-in-scientific-research-12742532.html.
10
Bush, The Advancement, 78.

7. 5
adulthood, the only epistemological method he or she will trust when interpreting the scientific
data will be the scientific method.11
View of Human Beings
Scientific naturalism teaches that human beings are not uniquely distinct from other
creatures as the biblical worldview maintains. According to the theory of evolution, all human
beings descended from animals through a process called natural selection. The reason why all
naturalists believe this is because they unanimously hold the position that all creatures came
from a common ancestor, the single-cell organism. Consequently, there is very little significance
to human life if man is the result of impersonal forces, such as, time, chance, and randomness.
Such impersonal forces cannot endow personality, nor can they bestow purpose. Therefore,
according to the philosophy of scientific naturalism, the only logical conclusion that one can
reasonably come to concerning man’s existence is this: life has no meaning and life has no
purpose. If human life has no purpose and life has no meaning, then, the only philosophy that
would make any sense is “survival of the fittest.”
Source of Moral Authority
All naturalists object to rape, murder, and thievery as being morally wrong, but on what
grounds do they make such assertions? By what objective standard are these actions deemed
right or wrong? While Robert Audi’s research appears to indicate that ethical naturalism is
11
Actually, there are two ways of interpreting the scientific data concerning the origin of the universe,
theistically or atheistically, that is, with God or without God. Unfortunately, the only paradigm that is taught in
public schools today is the atheistic model. Therefore, if Christian parents want their children to learn the theistic
point of view when interpreting the scientific data, then, they need to learn this view for themselves and teach it to
their children.

8. 6
theoretically possible,12
it has not yet been successfully demonstrated that time, chance, and
randomness can produce a standard of morality. In light of this understanding, scientific
naturalism as a worldview has no grounds upon which to make moral assertions concerning the
value, dignity, and sanctity of human life. So, in the final analysis, scientific naturalism has no
source of moral authority.
An Evaluation of Scientific Naturalism
Does this worldview explain what it ought to explain?
First and foremost, scientific naturalism cannot adequately explain how simplicity gave
rise to complexity. In connection with the absurdity of this notion, notable philosopher and
apologist, Russ Bush offers the following argumentation,
To get from a random expansion of simple hydrogen atoms, assuming they could have
been spontaneously produced, to the known complexity of modern biological systems by
a nondirected, chance-driven process in the several billions of years which are available,
according to current scientific estimates, would be a feat nothing short of the miraculous.
What modern secular scientist believe is far more incredible than any biblical miracle
accepted by the simple Christian believer.13
In other words, the only grounds upon which one can rightly base their belief in such a theory is
by faith and faith alone. Observation of the natural world does not endorse such a view and
neither does good science. The only other option is faith.
Another problem that exists when using scientific naturalism as a hermeneutical lens to
examine the empirical data, is that, it cannot properly account for the gaps that are found in the
fossil record. According to the theory of evolution, all species evolved over long periods of
12
Robert Audi, “Ethical Naturalism as a Challenge to Theological Ethics.” Journal of the Society of
Christian Ethics 34, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 25. (accessed on September 6, 2019).
13
Bush, The Advancement, 29.

9. 7
time. The only problem with this theory is that there are no fossil records to substantiate this
claim. Consequently, biological evolution is a theory at best, and therefore, it should be taught
as a theory until there is evidence discovered in the fossil record to authenticate that claim.
Third, scientific naturalism cannot account for the intelligent design that is ubiquitous
throughout the cosmos. For instance, the DNA strand (i.e., genetic code), which carries an
extremely complex range of data, cannot be adequately explained by a system whose starting
point is singularity. In other words, you cannot get complexity from simplicity. Again, there are
no examples of single-cell organisms giving rise to more complex organisms that has been
observed in the natural world. So, if the scientific evidence in support of this theory is lacking,
then, why does it still continue to be endorsed scientifically?
Is This Worldview Logically Consistent?
This worldview is not logically consistent, because at the core of what it holds to be true
about the creation of the universe is that “nothing” gave rise to everything.14
This in and of itself
is a non-sensical statement, because there is no such thing as an effect without a cause.15
If the
cosmos is an effect, then, of course, this begs the question, what exactly caused it? To speak of
“nothing” as something, that is, nothing as having substance is a contradiction of terms. This
poses a very serious problem. According to the law of non-contradiction, “a” cannot be “a” and
“non-a” at the same time and in the same relationship. Either “nothing” is nothing or “nothing”
is something. It cannot be both at the same time in the same respect.16
14
The same argument can also be made that non-life gave rise to life.
15
All naturalist hold firm to the law of causality as a scientific principle. Ironically, when they are
explaining the origins of the universe, they suspend this principle entirely.
16
The author is indebted to Douglas Groothuis for the formulation of this argument. See the Laws of Logic
in Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 2011), 48.

10. 8
Does This Worldview Have Factual Adequacy?
Scientific naturalism as a worldview conflicts with what is already scientifically known
to be true from other fields of study. For example, in the field of biology, there are literally
thousands upon thousands of life forms on earth from the micro to the macro level. In every
single instance of the existence of life in the natural observable world, the unanimous example is
this: life begets life. If this fact holds true unanimously when it comes to all forms of life in this
field of study, then why would it not also hold true when it comes the origin of life in general?
For example, in the field of natural science principles, such as, the law inertia17
and the law of
causality18
are violated when naturalists seek to explain the origin of the universe. For instance,
if everything is reduced to a point of singularity, which they contend, and everything was in a
state of inertia, which they also contend, then, what influenced the body at rest? Furthermore, if
the Big Bang was an effect, then, what was the cause that preceded the Big Bang?19
Ironically,
these two principles are unbreakable rules that all naturalists abide by when they are engaged in
the task of scientific investigation. When it comes to the explanation of the origin of the
universe these rules seem to disappear.
Is This Worldview Existentially Viable?
When it comes to living out this worldview in a morally consistent way it simply is not
possible. Since this worldview cannot account for the existence of an objective moral standard,
then, moral authority is at the mercy of subjectivism, which in turn, ultimately leads to moral
17
The law of inertia states that, a body at rest stays at rest until influenced by an outside force or a body in
motion stays in motion until influenced by an outside force.
18
The law of causality states that for every effect there must be a cause.
19
The author is indebted to R. C. Sproul for the formulation of argument.

11. 9
relativism. In light of this view, “morality is a product of human choice.”20
If this view is
correct, then, morality is a human invention and “there is no objective sense in which any choice
is better than any other.”21
This would mean that choosing to do the morally right or wrong
thing would be the same as choosing one’s preference over chocolate ice cream or vanilla.
Honestly speaking, there is no way that anyone would enjoy living in a society that is governed
by a moral standard like this.
An Evaluation of the Christian Worldview
Does this worldview explain what it ought to explain?
The Christian worldview accurately describes reality the way it actually is. For example,
man was intentionally created by his Maker as a highly complex organism, rather than evolving
from simplicity (Gen. 1:26-27). Man was created with the ultimate purpose of reflecting his
Creator to the rest of His good creation (Gen. 1:26, 31). There is a moral defection in all men as
a result of the consequences of sin (Gen. 6:4; 9:6; Jer. 17:9; Psalm 51:5). The intelligent design
inherent in the cosmos points to the reality of an intelligent Designer (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20).
The complexity found in mankind’s DNA points to an origin whose starting point was
complexity (Gen. 1:26). The unanimous explanation of life in the natural world is that life came
from life (Gen. 1:11-13, 20-26).
Another example that can be used is the anthropological evaluation. With respect to the
study of man, however, there are four fundament questions that every worldview must ask and
answer: origin, identity, purpose, and destination, that is, (1) where did we come from; (2) who
20
Whitley R P. Kaufman, “Poetic Naturalism: Sean Carroll, Science, and Moral Objectivity.” Zygon 52, no.
1 (March 2017): 200 (accessed on September 7, 2019).
21
Ibid.

12. 10
are we; (3) why are we here; and (4) where are we going? The Christian worldview is the only
worldview that offers the most satisfactory answers to the following four questions. This view
can be outlined as follows: (1) Man was created by God, therefore, he is the result of creation,
not evolution (Gen. 1:26). (2) Man was created in the image of God; therefore, man is endowed
with a purpose and has a meaning for his existence (Gen. 1:26-27). (3) Man’s purpose in life is
to glorify God by reflecting His image to the rest of creation (Gen. 1:26). (4) Man’s ideal
destiny is to spend eternity with his Creator (Rev. 19:6-9; 20:12).22
Is This Worldview Logically Consistent?
There are no inherent contradictions in the Christian worldview. While some may charge
Christians with embracing contradictions (i.e., the triunity of God, the hypostatic union of Christ,
etc.), upon closer examination, there may be a few paradoxes and even a few mysteries, but there
are no contradictions. The Christian worldview is not based on nonsensical mysticism and
exoteric knowledge that involves inconsistencies. Rather, the Christian worldview is based on
propositional truths that are grounded in the Scriptures. These truths are logically consistent and
compatible with reality. In fact, it is the only worldview that accurately reflects reality the way it
actually is (see previous paragraph for details).23
Does This Worldview Have Factual Adequacy?
The Christian worldview is totally compatible with the scientific data and coheres with
other fields of study. For instance, biology had discovered the fact that all living creatures in the
22
The author chose to use the word ideal here, because unfortunately, some people will reject this glorious
destiny as a result of loving the things of this world more than the One who created them. The only other alternative
is to spend eternity in hell.
23
This argument excludes Judaism. Christianity is the fulfillment of what Judaism anticipated, their
Messiah.

13. 11
natural world are derived from other living creatures. With respect to the origin of life, the
Christian worldview teaches the very same principle: life comes from life, intelligence from
intelligence, information from information, and complexity from complexity. This is exactly
what one would expect to find in a worldview that most accurately describes reality. What about
the fossil record? Does the Christian worldview adequately explain this phenomenon? The
answer is a resounding, “yes.” The lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record point to the fact
that every species was individually created according to their own kind (Gen. 1:20-25). Again,
this is exactly what one would expect to find when evaluating the scientific data.24
Is this worldview existentially viable?
At the heart of the Christian worldview is a morally perfect Being, who is relational by
his very nature.25
Not only does he define personhood (i.e., consciousness, self-awareness, etc.),
he also sets the standard for what moral perfection looks like. Without the existence of such a
Being, there can be no such thing as an objective standard of morality. Moral perfection cannot
flow from a morally imperfect creature, as ethical relativists contend,26
rather it must flow from
the divine Creator, who is altogether morally perfect. Therefore, when it comes to living out the
Christian worldview in a morally consistent way, the Christian worldview is not only
existentially viable, but it also sets a standard of morality by which to differentiate right from
wrong. Besides, “Ethics according to the Christian conception, is anchored in the reality of a
personal and moral God who is free to interact with his creation in order to impart moral
24
While there may be variations within the same kind (i.e., micro evolution), there is no evidence currently
available to endorse the idea of one species giving rise to another (i.e., macro evolution).
25
That is, God eternally existed as three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but one in the same
essence (i.e., Holy Trinity).
26
See, for example, Clyde Kluckhohn, “Ethical Relativity: ‘Sic et Non,’” Journal of Philosophy 52 (1955):
670-72.

14. 12
knowledge.”27
In light of this magnificent point, Christianity is utterly different from all the
other major world religions that place moralistic demands upon its adherents. Christianity is the
only major world religion that has its standard of morality embodied in a person and his name is
Jesus Christ.28
A Defense of the Christian Worldview
In light of what has been already addressed, the author will now offer a three-fold
argument to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is more viable than scientific naturalism:
Christianity versus scientific naturalism against the backdrop of the scientific data, objective
truth and moral values, and an argument for God’s existence.
Christianity vs. Scientific Naturalism Against the Backdrop of the Scientific Data
As demonstrated above, Christianity accounts for more of the scientific data than
naturalism and offers a better model for evaluating the evidence. For example, when it comes to
explaining the origin of the universe, scientific naturalism cannot properly explain the origin of
the universe without making nonsense statements and slipping into absurdity (see pg. 8). By
default, of their worldview, the naturalist violates the very same principles that govern the rest of
their scientific investigations which makes his or her research intelligible (i.e., law of causality,
law of noncontradiction, law of inertia, etc.). By contrast, however, Christianity is able to
adequately explain the origin of the universe without violating these laws of logic and account
for more of the scientific data. Therefore, the Christian worldview is a better model for
evaluating the empirical data.
27
Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 89.
28
See, for example, John 13:34-35; 14:9; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 21:23.

15. 13
Another point that is worth mentioning here, is that, scientific naturalism cannot properly
account for the gaps that are found in the fossil record. While this fact may come as a surprise to
Western thinkers, who have been taught the theory of evolution for the vast majority of their
academic lives, according to current archeological discoveries, there is no current evidence
whatsoever to substantiate the plausibility of this theory. On the other hand, however, the
Christian worldview matches the evidence perfectly that is found in the fossil record (i.e., no
macro evolution). Therefore, once again, the Christian worldview is a better model for
evaluating the empirical data.
Defense of Objective Truth and Moral Values
Moral values can only be present in a theistic worldview, that is, in light of the existence
of a morally perfect Being. If a morally perfect Being does not exist, contends Groothuis, there
can be no such thing as an objective standard of morality.29
As noted earlier, if nature is God
and if God is all (i.e., pantheism), then God embraces both good and evil. If this view is correct,
then, there is no distinction between right and wrong.30
Therefore, according to the philosophy
of scientific naturalism all moral conduct (both good and evil) is absolutely permissible. In fact,
without the presence of an objective moral law there is no way to properly differentiate between
the concepts of good and evil.31
Furthermore, in order for that moral law to be considered
objective, it must perfect, righteous, and immutable.32
If such a law does exist, then, it must flow
from a Being, who is morally perfect, righteous, and immutable. With respect to this idea,
29
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 350-52.
30
Ibid., 353.
31
Ibid., 355.
32
The moral law is immutable in the sense that, it transcends time, that is, it is true in all generations and
the moral law is ubiquitous in the sense that, it transcends space, that is, it is true in all cultures.

16. 14
Millard Erickson makes the following observation, “Good is not defined in terms of what brings
personal pleasure to humans in a direct fashion. Good is to be defined in relationship to the will
and being of God. Good is what glorifies him, fulfills his will, conforms to his nature.”33
In this
definition of good and evil, the idea of evil is more or less a violation of the concept of good,
which, considering the source, proves to be a very fitting point of reference. Therefore, without
the existence of such a Being, there can be no such thing as objective truth and there can be no
such thing as an objective standard of morality.
An Argument for God’s Existence
The argument that will be espoused in this section will be the argument for God’s
existence known as the intelligent design argument.34
This argument can be outlined as follows:
(1) the cosmos is intelligently designed, (2) signs of intelligent design are evident, and (3) these
intelligent designs point toward the intelligent Designer.35
As you have probably guessed
already, the starting point for God’s existence according to this view is the inherent intelligence
that is found throughout the cosmos. There are two levels in which this intelligence is
observable: the micro and macro level. At the micro level, the intricate details of minute
information that can be found in the DNA stand, for example, reveals that it must have been put
there on purpose by an intelligent Designer. In support of this view, Rush observes, “The
existence of the genetic code implies a necessary source of information that is not found in the
33
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bakers Academic, 2013), 396.
34
The reason why the author chose to present this particular argument instead of the others, is because the
cosmological and moral arguments for God’s existence has already been presented through out the course of this
paper.
35
This version of the design argument is identical to Groothuis’, but with one slight exception, the word
“intelligent” is inserted in each premise (see Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 242).

17. 15
chemistry alone.”36
In other words, the level of complexity that is found in the DNA strand is
less likely to have originated from simplicity. This point is congruent with the work of
Groothuis, who notes, “Complexity is a form of probability. The greater the complexity, the less
the probability that the event or object came about by chance – that is, without intelligent
causation.”37
Therefore, according to the evidence at the micro level it appears to point toward
an intelligent Designer. While many naturalists object to the intelligent design argument in a
variety of ways,38
the overwhelming evidence of the universe, is this: everywhere one looks in
the universe intelligence is on display for everyone to see. So, in the final analysis, time, chance,
and impersonal forces cannot adequately explain the intelligence that is found throughout the
universe.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as demonstrated throughout the course of this study, scientific naturalism
fails in a variety of ways when it comes to the task of evaluating the evidence based on the
scientific data. Due to the presuppositions of this worldview, it is virtually impossible to explain
reality apart from nature and naturalistic laws. There can be no such thing as supernatural
entities that have the ability to transcend the natural world. Therefore, this view of reality is
ultimately limited to what can be observed. The only problem is that this view cannot
adequately account for all of the data that is present in the natural world. Therefore, according to
the overwhelming evidence that has been presented in this paper, it appears that the Christian
36
Rush, The Advancement, 81.
37
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 245.
38
For example, the truism objection, the inscrutable odds objection, the chance, one universe hypothesis,
the multiverse theory, and the more fundamental laws objection. See also, Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 254-
64.

18. 16
worldview is a better paradigm for evaluating reality when it comes to interpreting the scientific
data.

19. 17
Bibliography
________ “Naturalism: Varieties and Issues.” Zygon 38, no. 1 (March 2003): 85–120. Accessed
on September 6, 2019.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=
ATLA0001348727&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
________ Sciencing, “What Are the 8 Steps in Scientific Research.” Accessed on September 20,
2019. https://sciencing.com/what-are-the-8-steps-in-scientific-research-12742532.html.
Audi, Robert. “Ethical Naturalism as a Challenge to Theological Ethics.” Journal of the Society
of Christian Ethics 34, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 21–39. Accessed on September 6, 2019.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=
ATLA0001984844&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Bush, Russ L. The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in An Evolutionary Age. Nashville,
Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2003.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Kaufman, Whitley R P. “Poetic Naturalism: Sean Carroll, Science, and Moral
Objectivity.” Zygon 52, no. 1 (March 2017): 196–211. Accessed on September 7, 2019.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=
ATLAiBCB170331000127&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Lewis, C. S. “Miracles.” In The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1974.
McNabb, Tyler Dalton. “Defeating Naturalism: Defending and Reformulating Plantinga’s
EAAN.” Eleutheria 4, no. 1 (2015): 35–51.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=
ATLAn3782897&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Moreland, J. P. “Science and Theology.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd
ed., Walter
A. Elwell ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).
Moreland, J. P. “What is Scientific Naturalism?” Focus on the Family. 2004. Accessed on
September 8, 2019. https://www.boundless.org/faith/what-is-scientific-naturalism/.
Pun, P. P. T. “Evolution.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd
ed., Walter A. Elwell ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

20. 18
Slife, Brent D, Shannon Starks, and Mark Primosch. “Questioning the Presumption of
Naturalism in the Social Sciences: A Case Study.” Pastoral Psychology 63, no. 3 (June
2014): 339–53. Accessed on September 7, 2019.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=
ATLA0001992476&site=ehost-live&scope=site.