Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism

Mark Vuletic


Natural processes cannot be the cause of things like love; the cause of love must itself be loving.


Whether or not love can be a natural phenomenon, the creationist argument above does not show that it cannot be. The argument depends on the notion that the cause of x must be x-like. However, as Michael Ruse points out, if it were a rule that the cause of x must be x-like, this would imply that manure, one cause of the growth of "tasty and nutritious" rhubarb, must itself be tasty and nutritious (Ruse 1982:305). Michael Shermer makes the even more devastating observation that if it were true that the cause of x must be x-like, then creationism would instantly be refuted, since the cause of nature would have to be natural rather than supernatural (Shermer: 4).


Ruse M. 1982. Darwinism Defended. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shermer M. 25 creationists' arguments & 25 evolutionists' answers. Skeptic 2(2). Put into pamphlet form by Skeptic magazine, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001. Phone/fax: 818/794-3119.

Last updated: 1 Jul 2015

Pleased? Angered? Confused? Have something else you would like
me to write about? Please send in your questions and comments!