5A. Does "natural" mean "it
happened without God"?
Do natural events occur
without God? Sometimes Christians behave
as
if
we
believe this. The normal operation of nature doesn't grab our attention,
and a natural process (a normal-appearing process)
is what we expect, so we assume
it's just "the way things happen" and they happen
without
God. For a Christian, this is a wrong way to think.
In a Judeo-Christian
worldview, natural does
not mean "without God" because God designed and created
natural process, and continually sustains its operation. And natural does
not mean "without control" because God can guide natural process
to produce a desired natural result instead of another natural result.
Sunshine warms our bodies,
grows our food, and lets us see. But why do we have sunshine? It
occurs due to a balance between opposing natural forces, in a cosmic
tug-of-war that has lasted billions of years, with some forces
constantly pushing
the sun's fiery atmosphere outward, while other forces pull it
inward. Neither set of forces can "win" due to a
fine-tuned balance that depends on the mass of particles, conversion
of mass to energy (e =
mc2),
rate of nuclear reactions, and relative sizes of nuclear and gravitational
forces. *
How should Christians respond
when we learn that science can explain how sunshine is produced by natural
process? Should
we be sad because sunshine occurs without God, who isn't necessary? No. Instead
we should rejoice, praising God for the wonderful way He created nature
in a way that is "just right" to naturally produce sunshine!
* Stars produce the atoms
that form our bodies and our planet. Yes, we and our home are made
from stardust! / In the Middle Ages, alchemists
dreamed of converting lead into gold. Now we know that alchemy
cannot do this, but stars do convert hydrogen into gold.
An
enhanced appreciation for natural process will give us more freedom in
thinking about the history of nature, and appreciating the science
that helps us understand the
nature created by God. More important, it will also help
us develop a better perspective on everyday life.
In conventional Christian theology,
God is constantly aware of what is happening, and He is caring for us. Christians
believe that God can change our situations and our thoughts and actions,
and that He responds to prayer. Usually, all of this happens in a way
that appears normal and natural, yet God is actively involved. We tend
to ignore what God is doing when His actions are not obvious, but this is
not a good way to view life. Instead, in our worldview — in
our "view of the world" that we use for living in the world — each
of us should acknowledge the natural-appearing actions of God. We should
pray for these actions, and praise God for them. This thankful awareness
is an important part of the "living by faith" character that
is highly valued by God, with a trust in God serving as the foundation for
all
thoughts
and actions in daily living.
5B. Three explanations for a "just right" universe?
An amazing discovery of
scientists, in recent decades, is that many properties
of the universe are "just right" for life. To
understand why scientists think the universe is fine
tuned to allow life, imagine that you are sitting in front of
a control panel with dozens of dials. To allow life, each dial — which
controls one property of the universe — must be tuned to a specific
setting within a very narrow range. You are alive, reading this
web-page, because all dials are properly tuned, and this produces
a wide variety of life-permitting natural phenomena that include stable
atoms and molecules, stars that produce the energy and atoms needed for
life, the amazing chemistry of DNA, water, and proteins, and much more.
Most scientists are convinced
that constraints on a life-allowing universe are very tight, that small
changes would make the existence of intelligent life impossible. Based
on scientific evidence, there is little doubt about this conclusion. But
there are two main theories (and three explanations) for why our universe
is what it is:
TWO THEORIES
Intelligent Design — "Wow!" is
a rational response to the mountain of evidence for fine tuning. And
the simplest causal theory is to propose that our universe was
designed and created by an extremely intelligent and powerful designer/creator
who wanted to make a wonderful world with sunshine, proteins, and people. A
Judeo-Christian theist will propose that God is the designer.
Multiverse — Scientists
think the probability of a life-supporting universe is extremely low. If
there is only one universe, and it was not designed for life, we must be extremely
lucky. But if there is an immense number of universes (in a multiverse)
with properties varying throughout the entire range of possibilities, the odds
would favor having at least one universe with intelligent life. Basically, this theory is
a way to beat the odds, and it can be used to "explain away" all
evidence for design, whether this evidence occurs at the level of the universe,
origin of life, or development of life, or you winning ten consecutive lotteries,
because everything will happen if there are enough universes.
THREE EXPLANATIONS
According to Robin Collins, a multiverse is scientifically
possible (although currently speculative) but "even
if a ‘many-universes generator’ exists it seems to need to be well
designed" in order to produce a multitude of universes with widely
varying properties.
Therefore, the choice is not
EITHER design OR multiverse,
but instead is
EITHER designed
universe or designed multiverse OR non-designed
multiverse,
so we have three explanations
for our fine-tuned "just right" world.
Universe Observation,
Grand Unification, Anthropic Principle
Can scientific observations help us know if we live
in a universe or a multiverse? No, at least not directly. According
to the most common multiverse theories, other universes are in a different space-time
framework, or are very far away, so they cannot be observed. Therefore,
the fact that we don't observe other universes does not count as evidence against a
multiverse theory. But we haven't observed any other universes, so there
is no direct evidence for them.
Some scientists hope that eventually
a "grand unified theory" will show why the properties of nature MUST
be what they are. If they do, would this support a theory of materialistic
non-design? Or would it be more rational to conclude — if
there is only one way to make a set of properties, and if this one set produces
a
universe that allows life — that the universe, operating as described
in this elegantly unified theory, has been cleverly designed? { Or
perhaps
the unification is simply a deterministic property of the "strings" in
our universe. }
Or maybe we should just
say "so what?" because if we are observing a universe,
obviously it must have properties that allow our existence. This anthropic
principle — which states that because humans exist,
the universe we observe will be consistent with our existence — is
logically valid, and is compatible with
either the presence or absence of a designer, so it doesn't
favor either theory.
No Conclusion?
How did our universe begin, and why does it have
properties that allow life? All three explanations seem impossible to prove
or disprove, mainly because our evaluations are hindered by an absence of data
when we ask "what existed (and what happened) before the Big Bang Beginning?"
An atheist assumes the existence
of a materialistic capability for creating our universe. A
theist assumes the existence of God, who has this
capability. Each asks the other, "Can you explain what caused the
existence of what you assume as the starting point?" Neither offers
an answer that satisfies the other, and neither assumption can be proved. Due
to a lack of data, choosing one of the three explanations (or "none of
the above") can be strongly influenced by personal preference for a particular
worldview and its effects on the way you live, as explained below.
faith and praise: Christians
believe that God designed and created our world, even though we cannot
prove it. And we praise God for his
clever design of nature that allows a wonderful world with sunshine,
proteins, and people!
5C. Can we prove the existence and activities of
God?
Sometimes debaters, using
logic and philosophical arguments, try to prove or disprove the existence
of God. But proof seems impossible, and this is frustrating for
those who seek certainty.
In the salvation history
of humans, as recorded in the Bible, God does miracles and occasionally
provides other attention-getters, such as angels who become visible
and audible. But why doesn't God do spectacular miracles more
often? Why didn't the risen Jesus go to downtown Jerusalem and
show everyone that He was alive? And why doesn't God give everyone
a persuasive "Damascus Road experience" as with Paul in Acts
9?
In the formative history
of nature, "origins questions" don't have obvious answers. When
we study nature and the Bible, we can find evidence to support a
wide range of views, including young-earth creation, old-earth progressive
creation, evolutionary creation, and atheistic evolution. If
God wants us to recognize Him as Creator, why is there evidence — like
a general increase of biocomplexity and biodiversity, with features
giving an appearance of common descent, and long delays between major
biological innovations (such as 3 billion years from the first life
to the Cambrian Explosion) — that might lead some rational
people to propose "atheistic evolution" as an explanation?
Perhaps the universe was cleverly
designed so all creation would occur by natural process.
Or maybe "miracles in formative
history" would be accepted by scientists if their theories were not being
constructed in a community biased by its assumption that everything has
occurred by natural process. For example, we currently have scientific
reasons to question a natural origin of life, yet scientific questioning
is not encouraged in the community of scientists.
Or maybe during creation there
is "intentional ambiguity about miracles" — either because miracles
were not needed, or did occur but were "veiled" so they're not
easily detected by scientists — because God wants it this way. Maybe
it's one aspect of a state of uncertainty intended by God, who seems to
prefer a "balance of evidence" with enough logical reasons to
either believe (in God's existence and activities) or disbelieve, so a
person's heart and will are free to make a heart-and-will decision, without
being coerced by overwhelming intellectual evidence.
some clarifications:
Absolute truth does exist,
even though we cannot know with absolute certainty what this truth
is.
Despite the impossibility
of proof, evidence can affect our estimates for the plausibility of
various worldviews.
God does miracles, but
they are personalized (for a person or group) rather than general
(for everyone).
I'm not advocating a spiritual
agnosticism claiming that if there is not enough evidence for
certainty, the most rational decision is to not decide; as
explained below, each of us is living by faith in what we believe.
Each person can use evidence — historical (as
in the Bible), personal (with God giving us individually customized
evidence for His existence & activity, and drawing us to himself
by interacting with us through his Holy Spirit), interpersonal (by
talking with others, or reading what they write, to share in their experiences
and thinking), scriptural (based on what we learn from the Bible),
and scientific (by carefully studying nature) — to estimate
the plausibility of various worldviews. But there is no logical
proof for any worldview. We have freedom to choose what we really
want to believe, which is influenced by how we want to live, and
the lack of certainty forces each of us — no matter what we believe
in our unique individual worldview — to live by faith in what we
believe. Those placing their faith in Christ have an opportunity
to develop the "living by faith" character that is highly valued by God,
with a trust in God serving as the foundation for all thoughts and actions
in daily living.
Worldview Asymmetry: At least one miracle
in salvation history — in the resurrection of Jesus — is
essential for Christian belief, but "no miracles in formative history" (or
in current
daily life) is fine for a Christian. By contrast, undeniable evidence for
any divine miracle, during either formative history or salvation history, would
be devastating for the worldview of an atheist,
deist, or rigid agnostic.
The views above are explained more thoroughly, along with ideas from
C.S. Lewis and speculations about Life as Drama, in a page asking Why
isn't God more obvious?
5D. Did God design nature to be 100% self-assembling?
Our observations of nature,
interpreted in science, tell us that many properties of nature are "just
right" to produce a universe that is at least partially
self-assembling. But
current science is not conclusive when we ask, "Is nature 100% self-assembling?" And
is total self-assembly even possible? Maybe.
There
might be a tension between operation and assembly, and perhaps
a universe with optimal operation cannot also be totally self-assembling, so
a choice is necessary, so if God wants a universe with optimal
operation he
cannot design it for total
self-assembly. To
illustrate this possibility, Walter Bradley asks whether a car designed to
change its own spark plugs would be a good design, or if this unnecessary requirement
would hinder the car's effectiveness in other ways that are more important. Or
maybe a combination of optimal operation and total self-assembly is possible,
and God did design nature to be totally self-assembling by natural process.
Which universe is more
impressive?
If the universe was designed
to assemble itself by natural process, this would be impressive (and
glorifying for God) since it requires a clever design. But
miracles are also impressive (and glorifying) and they eliminate the
need for total self-assembly.
But natural
self-assembly, either partial or total, doesn't mean "without God," and God
may enjoy interacting with his creation in a non-deistic way —
by a divine guiding of natural process and/or with miracles — like
a gardener caring for a garden by preparing the soil, planting seeds, watering,
pulling
weeds,
and
harvesting.
In our search for truth, when
we ask "Is the universe totally self-assembling?" we are influenced
by differences in personal preference, which occur for reasons that are
scientific,
theological, philosophical, emotional, and aesthetic. Some people
want the universe to be self-assembling, while others
prefer a process that includes miracles. Neither preference for "the
process of creation" seems to be clearly taught in the Bible, but
both seem compatible with what is clearly taught.
5E. Is "theistic
evolution" an
impossible combination?
Is evolution inherently
atheistic, or can it be part of a Christian
worldview?
Two Bad Arguments
Some people, both atheists and Christians, criticize
theistic evolution
in
a two-step argument: First, they
accept the atheistic claim that natural process happens without God. Second,
this bad theology is used to justify a claim
that "natural evolution is atheistic, so theistic evolution is impossible." Of
course, this argument is theologically illogical because it's based on atheistic
theology.
Here is a related argument: An
atheist (or a deist, or semi-theist who is drifting toward deism) will almost
always accept evolution. This fact is the basis for guilt by association, implying
that "atheists are evolutionists, so evolutionists
are atheists." * But this claim
is false, for the same
reason that "all
dogs are animals, so all animals are dogs" is false. Those proposing "evolution" include
atheists, deists, pantheists, agnostics, and others, plus some Christians. / *
Here is another way to state the claim: "if atheism (or deism)
then evolution" is true, so "if
evolution then atheism (or deism) is true." This is also logically
incorrect, because "if dog then animal" doesn't mean "if animal then dog."
Theistic Evolution and
Miracles
A person who accepts scientific
theories of evolution can have theology that is either strong or weak,
that ranges from devout Christianity through minimal theism and deism
to atheism.
The Bible clearly states that
God sometimes does miracles, so all Christians should be open to the possibility
of miracles during any part of history. But a devout Christian who
believes "miracles occurred in the salvation history of
humans (as recorded in the Bible)" could, after a careful evaluation
of science and theology, conclude that "formative
history was all-natural."
Theistic Interpretation
of Naturalistic Theories
A nontheistic
interpretation of
neo-Darwinism views the process of evolution as being not designed by
God, using matter not created by God, driven by only chance
and selection that were not guided by God. {an example: biology
teachers (in NABT) claim evolution was "unsupervised"} But
these claims are theological, not scientific, and a theistic
interpretation can disagree by viewing the evolutionary process
as being designed by God, using matter created by God, and
(at least sometimes) guided by God.
Scientifically, theistic evolution
agrees with conventional neo-Darwinism, but theologically (with
its theistic interpretation of neo-Darwinian natural process) it is
a theory of divine creation.
In most fields of
science — ranging from the physics
of rain to the chemistry of embryological development and physiological
operation — there
are no theological criticisms of scientists who accept naturalistic theories
that propose "only natural process." Theistic evolution
just extends this general acceptance into another area.
Other Objections to Evolution
Advocates of
young-earth creationism claim that all old-earth views (both
evolutionary creation without miracles, and progressive creation with
miracles) are theologically unacceptable because Genesis 1 must be
interpreted as
a 144-hour creation,
and no death could occur before human sin. And they, along
with some progressive creationists, think Genesis 2 — with
God forming Adam from "the
dust of the ground" and
Eve from his rib — teaches a non-evolutionary special creation
of humans.
These
questions are discussed in FAQ-4 (What
does Bible-information say about age?) and HUMAN
ORIGINS.
Is it possible?
A scientific/theological theory of evolutionary
creation (also called theistic evolution)
proposes that natural evolution was God's method of creation, and this was possible
because He designed the universe so complex physical structures (galaxies,
stars, planets) and biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans)
would naturally evolve.
The previous section asked "is
this [a total self-assembly] possible?" and answered "maybe." Is
it theologically wise to claim that God could not do this, or would
not do it? In
our current state of scientific and theological knowledge, humility seems
appropriate,
with "no" (for the "could not" claim) and "maybe" (for
the "would not" and "did not" claims) as the most
justifiable answers.
Could unguided evolution
achieve the goals of God?
If natural process
was materially sufficient (to produce physical
and biological complexity), would it be theologically
sufficient (to achieve the goals of God)?
When thinking about this question,
we need to ask: 1) How precisely defined were the goals of God? Did
God want to create exactly what occurred in nature's history, or would
something slightly different, or very different, have been satisfactory? 2)
If evolutionary history was allowed to occur a thousand times with results
determined only by unguided chance, what would be the variability in results?
Even if unguided evolutionary
history would be less variable than most scientists think,
it seems that some guidance would be necessary to achieve the goals
of God, especially for creating humans with the characteristics (physical,
mental, emotional, ethical, spiritual) and environment (planetary,
ecological,...) desired by God.
an
I.O.U. — Later, a section about "human origins" will
be added to this FAQ (and there will be a links-page with views by
different
authors about HUMAN
ORIGINS)
to
show
how
a divine creation of humans by a process that includes "pre-human hominid
ancestors," with or without miracles, is compatible with what the Bible
says
about
humans
and
our
relationship
with God.
Natural Evolution could
be Actively Guided by God
Evolutionary creationists can propose that evolution
was more than just minimally theistic (or even deistic)
with God setting nature in motion and then "letting it run" by using
only the foundational divine action (with initial
action determining the characteristics of nature, and sustaining
action letting nature continue) that is necessary to allow history. They
can claim that the
process was actively theistic because it
included active divine
action (in natural-appearing supernatural guidance) that makes
a difference in
history, but without
miraculous-appearing action because it was not needed.
Difficult Theological Questions
Of course, a claim for active
divine action (either natural-appearing or miraculous-appearing) that "makes
a difference" leads
to important theological questions: Can God (or does God) control
everything? (i.e., do any unguided events occur outside God's control?) if
God is guiding, is He responsible for harmful random events (genetic
defects,...) and evolved organisms (deadly viruses,...) that happen in
history and in the present, and why does He allow bad things to happen
in nature and in our everyday lives?
These are difficult questions,
but one part of a satisfactory answer is the incarnation of Jesus, when God
lived among us, shared our joys and sorrows, and (on the cross) suffered
the consequences of moral and natural evil.
5F. Should we eliminate "God
of the gaps" criticism?
What does "God
of the gaps" mean?
When current naturalistic
scientific theories (about some aspect of formative history)
seem implausible, is this science gap due
to the inadequacy of current science, or does it indicate a nature
gap (a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process)
that was bridged by miraculous-appearing divine action?
Sometimes a theory proposing
a nature gap is ridiculed by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory. This
is confusing because "God of the gaps" can
have many meanings, but the intended meaning is rarely clarified, so this
term simply attaches a derogatory label instead of clearly expressing a
logical concern. It can cause confusion (when a reader wonders "what
is the intended meaning?") and miscommunication (when a writer intends
one meaning and a reader receives
another).
When someone says "God
of the gaps," ask "What do you mean?"
• If they are pointing
out the foolishness of claiming "God acts
only in gaps" — of claiming that "natural" means "it
happened without God," so "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't
do it" — their criticism is justified. But
check to see if this really is being proposed, and don't allow an either-or
choice between "only in the gaps" and "never in the gaps" as
if these were the only choices.
• If they are criticizing
a claim that "a nature-gap is possible so
we should consider this possibility," ask "What is the alternative? Are
you claiming that a nature-gap is impossible? Or
do you know with certainty that a 100%-natural evolution (astronomical, geological,
chemical, biological) of everything in the formative history of nature did
occur?" A "never
in the gaps" claim could be based on a theological
argument that a gap is impossible (an atheist will claim that a non-existent
God could not do it, while a theist can claim that God would not
do it) or a scientific argument that God has
never needed to do it.
• If they're questioning
a specific claim that "in this historical situation a
gap did occur," you can have a respectful discussion about the
theological and scientific merits of this claim. Similarly, a specific
claim that "in this situation a gap did not occur" should
be evaluated based on its theological and scientific merits, and so should
a general claim that "a gap has never occurred." / At
the two extremes of evaluation are decisions to conclude automatically — independent
of evidence — that "a science-gap must always be a nature-gap" or "a
science-gap could never be a nature-gap." A claim that "in
this situation a nature-gap was bridged by miraculous-appearing action" is
sometimes criticized as an "argument from ignorance," but if this
criticism is generalized to all of life it would be impossible to recognize
a miracle in any situation. For example, people in the Bible recognized
the natural patterns for how God usually works in nature, and this let them
recognize situations in which there was an obvious exception to these patterns,
and this led them to claim "it's a miracle!" In everyday
life and in science, what criteria should be used when concluding that a
miracle
probably has
or
has
not occurred? This
question is examined in Section 7B when we ask, Can
scientific methods be used to detect design?
• And if a critic
says "maybe
God did miracles during formative history, but a theory proposing miracles
should not be a part of science," they are proposing methodological
naturalism, which (along with "future science") is discussed
in FAQ-7. { views
of other authors — GOD
OF THE GAPS }
• A related example
of the term's
vague
plasticity — and the appeal of trying to exploit its negative connotations
(by turning an opponent into a verbal target) — is a claim that evolutionary
creation
is "god
of
the
gaps" thinking
when
it optimistically appeals
to future
science (as a god with the magical power to automatically fill every
possible
science-gap)
by assuming it
certainly will
fill all current science-gaps, thus concluding there are no nature-gaps.
a proposal: If we
want to improve
the precision in our thinking and communicating, we should eliminate
the term "God
of the gaps"
(which has many meanings) and replace it with a series of terms, as described
above,
whose meanings are more specific
and clear.
not either-or, and not
either-or
Christians should avoid two
false dichotomies:
First, we should not imply — and
we should gently but firmly disagree when others imply — that "natural" means "without
God," that "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it," that
if something happens by natural process it isn't divine action, so
it "counts against God" in our worldview-thinking about divine
action.
Second, we should not imply
that if someone claims God can (or did or does) work through miracles,
in formative history or salvation history, they are denying God's activities
in natural-appearing situations.
Both of these extreme demands — claiming
that you must make a choice because "either it's a divine miracle
or it's divine inaction," or "the actions of God are either always-natural
or never-natural" — are false dichotomies, because the
Bible clearly declares that God works in BOTH ways, usually through natural
process and occasionally through miracles. Affirming one mode
of divine action does not require rejecting the other.
Both either-or dichotomies
are useful for atheists, in a clever "heads we win, tails you lose" argument — if
there are no nature gaps then it all happens without God, but it's wrong
to claim a nature gap — that uses the either-or claims made by some opponents and proponents of
evolutionary creation, respectively. Christians can respond by rejecting
either atheistic argument (heads or tails) but — considering the
humility that is justifiable in both science and theology — it seems
wiser to reject both.
5G. What is an appropriate
humility about creation?
In science and theology,
our humility should be appropriate — not too little, not too much. In
each area we can make some claims, but not others, with confidence. Other
parts of this FAQ look at appropriate humility, regarding
the
reliability
of
historical
science for age-questions & design-questions,
and deciding whether not old-earth & not
evolution are essential theological
doctrines in Christianity. But some other Christians disagree
with my choice of the claims that can and cannot be made with confidence, so
this
section
just describes
my
own view of appropriate humility.
In my opinion, theological
and scientific arguments are not decisive when we ask, "Can natural
process (guided or unguided) lead to a total self-assembly of the universe
into its present state?"
The Bible clearly states that God
used miracles in salvation history, but is less clear about miracles in formative
history, so each view — proposing a formative history either with
or without miracles, including two modes of divine action or only one — seems
compatible with what the Bible clearly teaches. Therefore, instead
of criticizing either possibility as being "a less worthy way for God
to create," it
seems wise to adopt a humble attitude by deciding that, either way,
God's
plan for
design-and-creation was wonderful and is worthy of our praise.
When science helps us discover
any aspect of God's clever design for natural self-assembly, we should
praise God. We should also praise God for miracles. Whether
a feature of the universe (stars or stardust, first life or higher life)
was created by natural process and/or by miracle, we can praise God for
his intelligence, power, and wisdom, for what he created and how he created
it.
You and I should say in public — and
believe in private, in our hearts and minds — that "IF God
created using another method (differing from the way I think he created),
then God is worthy of our praise." But this humility (if...
then...) is compatible with also explaining why we think a particular
view is most likely to be true. We can be humble while we explain — using
arguments based on theology and science, based on our interpretations
of scripture and nature — why we think one view is more plausible
than other views.
An appropriate humility
requires a balance between two desirable qualities — confidence (which
if overdeveloped can become rude arrogance) and humility (which
can become intellectual laziness, timid relativism, or aggressive
postmodernism) — that are in tension. But most of
us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in our own
theories, so the virtue of modest humility usually has a beneficial
effect.
Even when Christians disagree
about the details of creation, we are brothers and sisters in Christ,
and we can join together in our praise of the creator, joyously proclaiming
that "you are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive
glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will
they were created and have their being. (Revelation 4:11)"