Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.

There are many problems with a naturalistic explanation for life. To begin with, they hold tightly to the belief of "Spontaneous Generous" which is the theory that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms. This theory, however, was scientifically proven false through Redi and Pasteur's experiments. Scientific naturalism chooses to transform the limitations of science into the limitations on reality. In fact, there is nothing "fact" about the naturalistic explanation for life and it fails to answer vital questions. Another issue is the complexity of the cell. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, asked it best- "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" It's as ridiculous as Texas being covered ten feet in quarters, and a blind man, on his first try, picking up the only 2010 one- it's illogical! Further, there is the entire issue over which came first- proteins or DNA? Both are essential to the others existence, yet the Naturalistic fails to answer this question and many others that are essential to our existence. The issues with the naturalistic are truly endless. In addition, there fails to be any fossil evidence to support their view of cambry: the sudden geological appearance of most major groups of animals. However, despite this "conclusion," there is absolutely no fossil evidence to support that they came from a common ancestor, and all animals appeared with major differences. From the beginning of Darwin's naturalistic "experiments," he has been lying to himself and others. He attempted to prove through the Galapagos Finches beak sizes changing in shape in size, that macro-evolution is true. However, the changes in the beaks are temporary and they change back and forth! Though this supports micro-evolution, this in no way supports macro-evolution, and any naturalistic that chooses to believe it is a fool. Naturalist explanations are drooped in fradulence and errors, and truly has no facts to believe it. It's true when God says "man's heart is foolish"- our modern naturalistic scientists are prime examples of this.

Delight in Disorder Poem

Delight in Disorder

By: Robert Herrick

A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness;
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction;
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthralls the crimson stomacher;
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbons to flow confusedly;
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat;
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility;--
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.

After I read this poem, I fell instantly in love with it! Though after research I saw it could be interpreted diversely, I chose the more innocent approach. I saw this literally as a man who is in love with a woman who is less than “tidy”—in fact, she mirrors a disaster, constantly in disarray. Overall, Herrick seems to be attacking the universal belief that “organization” is “right.” The fact he condemns the current art portrays the lack of contentment with the “neat and tidy.” This portrays early signs of an art movement, now fully seen in “abstract” art. Written in 1648, it is clear Herrick is way ahead of his times with the whole “Post Modern” movement.  

This entire poem appears to be a paradox. Just looking at the title “Delight in Disorder” would seem contradictory to the people in his day and age. However, as he goes on to explain this idea, he creates more paradoxical comparisons. In the first line, he comments on her dress being a “sweet disorder.” Usually disorder has a connotation of “stress” and means turmoil- something not delightful. When paired with “sweet,” it portrays a completely new contrasting idea. This also sets up for the interpretation that the two lovers have been “fooling around” aka having sex. That would further explain the specific diction within the poem. Rather than being mistaken for a father’s love of his “disordered” child, Herrick purposefully chooses words that place this love in the context of a dating or marriage relationship. Words, such as, “tempestuous” and “bewitch” display the sexual drive the man feels toward this woman, and it is evident his love is not merely in her “lack of order.” Rather than seeing “I like he,” he chooses passionate words, such as, “bewitch” demonstrating how he feels “powerless” and “under a spell”- very common depictions of love, or rather lust.

It’s hard to imagine the man truly “loves” the woman because he only talks of physical attributes. Her clothing: her dress, her shoulders, her ribbons, her shoelaces are all “fine distractions”- but lacks bringing any depth to the poem. He even compares her to art- a very physical item.

                The rhyming scheme within the poem further matches its message. Rather than all rhyming, or all free style, Herrick combines them like he mixes “wild civility.” He takes two extremes and puts them side by side. However, the neat outline of the poem is rather ironic to its content. He chooses simple words that convey strong feelings/ actions. Herrick purposefully makes this an easy read, in order to enable his reader to relate. Perhaps he feels other gentlemen agree with his belief, but cannot put words to it. His details are easily pictured in one’s mind, and therefore evoke emotion and a personal connection. Despite the fact the author’s tone is detached, (which supports the belief that the woman is a prostitute) as a reader, one can take this scene, and add their own passion to it. Since it is not vivid descriptions, rather a “rough outline,” the reader can adapt a more personal aspect to it- perhaps putting a face and therefore passion to the “Delight in Disorder” person.