Biology Questions: What is wrong with Naturalism?

I personally would say the biggest belief of a naturalist that I find completely wrong and intangible is the belief that living organisms came from non-living organisms, or otherwise referred to as spontaneous generation. It cannot be proved that living matter can come from non-living matter. This belief not only strips us of purpose, but it would mean that everything, all the intricacies of this planet are all formed by accident, that emotions and feels were all generated by lifeless matter. To me, this seems completely impossible. The belief that all of this came about by accident, and continues to come about by accident takes more faith than the belief in an all-powerful creator in my perspective.

Secondly, naturalists state their views on macroevolution as facts when in reality it cannot be tested or proved. They place so much of their beliefs on chance, that we all came to being living, breathing, emotion-filled beings by CHANCE. They attempt to prove their views on macroevolution by using microevolution, something that is nowhere near proving macroevolution to be true, they are completely different and that is therefore unreliable.

Lastly, overall naturalism fails to provide a logical explanation for the origin of life and how it has sustained for so many years. The belief in naturalism discredits all forms of knowledge, logic, or emotions. How then can they explain sadness or cleverness. If it is merely an extension of the physical then it does not exist the way that we most often feel it. If one believes in the feelings or intuition that they have then they are in turn disproving naturalism.

Thought Piece

I never saw a Moor -Emily Dickinson
I never saw a Moor-
I never saw the Sea-
Yet know I how the Heather looks
And what a Billow be.

I never spoke with God
Nor visited in Heaven-
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the Checks were given-

I believe that the meaning of this poem revolves around a comparison, as well as something that most readers can relate to. Many people have not seen in person the Eiffel Tower, but they believe that it exists and they know what it looks like. This same idea is presented as Emily Dickinson's argument for why and how she believes in God. In the first stanza she speaks of things she has not seen but still understands and then indirectly in the second stanza she compares this to her belief in a God and heaven. If someone was to read just the lines "I never saw a Moor- I never saw the Sea- Yet know I how the Heather looks And what a Billow be" they would not understand the meaning to be representative of her faith in God. As a whole meaning, Emily is presenting the idea of faith in the unseen, and despite the fact that some may criticize this when it comes to religion, many do not realize that they make assumptions such as these on an everyday basis. Even people that are non-religious could relate with the first stanza of the poem, so Dickinson effectively draws the reader in with something they can relate to and then compares this with her religious beliefs. She is as certain of the waves (billows) in the sea as she is certain of Heaven and the presence of God. The last line "As if the Checks were given" shows that to her this idea is concrete and just as valuable as if she was holding something in her hand. Checks are tangible and are therefore representative of how she views her beliefs. The comparison of the first stanza being concrete and provable to God and Heaven shows that she has no differentiation between the two. Overall I see this as a very convincing argument for the belief in a God and Heaven. Although people mock beliefs in things that one has not seen, they too do the same. Although the two stanzas separately could be understood completely different if they were analyzed separately, when they are together the comparison proves a very strong point- that she places her faith in things that she does not always have to see.