The evidence for macroevolution is severely lacking. The major problems stem from the following areas: the extrapolation from micro to macroevolution, the lack of a mechanism that creates new genetic information and complex organs, and the vast historical story that necessarily involves a great deal of speculation. No matter. Evolutionism is the way things have to be, at least until another completely naturalistic explanation can find enough support.

Herein lies the problem. Evolutionism is accepted, not because of the facts, but in spite of the facts. But on what basis? In a word, naturalism. Materialism or naturalism is the underlying presupposition for evolutionism. This means that one cannot suggest the possibility that there is a supernatural agent at work in this world without contradicting "science."

This gets back to the two distinct concepts concerning science. Once again, the first is that science is an objective fact-finding procedure through which experimentation and observation produces knowledge. The second is that science is identified with the philosophy of naturalism. Everything that exists has a purely naturalistic explanation, and there is no room for the possibility that there is a God who could have any meaningful relationship to this world. Naturalists, of course, do not see a difference in these concepts of science. To them, "science" is naturalism, and naturalism is "science." So they feel free to take their naturalistic assumptions and make proclamations in the name of science; and any who question the assumptions will be vilified as religious nuts who are trying to get in the way of scientific progress.

With the naturalistic bias at its foundation, there can be no tolerance of other views that have a theistic basis. In other words, evolutionism cannot allow for the possibility that God created or had anything to do with the design of the universe. To allow for that possibility would be to deny "science" in this view because "science" and naturalism are virtually identical. So it is inconceivable that someone could challenge naturalism without challenging "science." And this lies at the heart of the culture war today.

Once the naturalistic bias is granted, evolutionism has a solid foothold. But here is the point: naturalism is an assumption. It is a presupposition, and it cannot in any way be verified, proved, or observed by the scientific method. By their very own view of science, naturalists cannot prove that naturalism is true; and they should not espouse it on the basis that it cannot be verified scientifically.

So naturalists have a problem. As supposedly objective, they have ruled out the possibility of anything beyond nature. So, if there is actually something beyond nature, they have excluded the possibility of discovering this. This, in itself, is irrational. What is more, what if naturalism is not the best explanation for the way things are? They cannot know for sure that they are on the right road of knowledge unless they are willing to consider the possibility that they are on the wrong road. The fundamental bias won’t allow for that, though. God must be kept out of objective reality at all costs.