This is one of the serious problems with naturalism. Naturalism, which underlies scientism, balks at the notion that there is a God, or that such a God could have created the universe. The assumption is that if "science" (which cannot include the supernatural) cannot validate something, then that something must not be true. Don't dare suggest anything miraculous for creation. Don't dare suggest that the supernatural can have anything meaningful to do with this universe. That, they think, is opposed to science.

Such thinking is irrational. Why? Well, let’s just say for a moment that there really is a God who created the universe (if you are a naturalist, humor me a moment). Naturalism has set itself up so that proponents of it are absolutely prevented from discovering this. They have ruled out the idea of the supernatural a priori, and nothing can convince them otherwise because of how they think at a foundational level. So, if theism is part of reality, they have shut themselves out of such possibility. Naturalism is a closed system of thinking; it is irrational because it could not discover if theism is reality.

Naturalism is, itself, a matter of one's belief. To argue, for instance, that "there is no God" or that "the material universe is all that there is" are statements that cannot possibly be empirically verified. So, contrary to their own rules of thinking regarding science, they make statements that are far beyond the realm of science to test. They violate their own way of thinking and don’t even realize it.

Science is a valid discipline, but it is far too limited to give us all knowledge. It can deal with "instrumental" knowledge. It can test certain aspects of the material universe; but it cannot tell us anything about ultimate purpose or give any knowledge about how people ought to act. It cannot even prove that humans are rational beings; for to prove it, you must first assume it.

Naturalism's claims go far beyond the authority of science. They cannot validate their naturalistic claims by science, because those claims are not testable by any experiment. Any concept regarding origins is going to be based upon a belief system. Creationists believe that the evidence points to a Creator; and this Creator gives us knowledge of ultimate purpose. Naturalists think that God can have no relevant meaning to the universe or life, but let them develop a test for this. They cannot do it.

Of course, if God exists, then He would not be amenable to natural law or testable by a method that automatically excludes the supernatural. So, the naturalist method inherently prevents the discovery or knowledge of the reality of God. Again, this is irrational from its inception.

Evolutionism is one of the stories based on naturalism. It is a major tenet of naturalism's church. This is one reason why attempting to harmonize theism with the claims of evolutionism is not very productive. They are at opposite poles on the most basic level. Contrary to what some think, creationists are not opposed to science – true science that is. In fact, it is based upon having an intelligent Creator that makes studying the material universe a valid possibility. How else can we be sure that we can even properly perceive the world? If God didn’t create, and we are the result of mindless chance, what guarantee do we have that we are really able to reason and think logically?