I have been following the creation-evolution debate with some interest, but I think it would be more interesting if the discussion were broadened out into how, as scientists, we interpret miracles. At the moment, Vernon is taking a lot of flak from scientists who believe (as I do) that science is all about finding naturalistic explanations. Hence there is opposition and scorn of Vernon's suggestion that the geological events in the flood proceeded as supernatural speed. As scientists, that concept threatens us; we like to see a world that is governed by scientific laws. There are some observations I would like to make on this.
First of all, I am assuming that as ASA is a group that stands for fidelity to the bible, that most people here don't have a problem with, say the miracles of Jesus. But I would maintain that scientists are trained to look for naturalistic causes of things; to push out the supernatural in favour of the natural.
Perhaps I can share with the group what seems to be a miraculous experience that happened to me around 10 years ago. The point of interest in the story is not the miracle itself, but my subsequent response, as a scientist to what happened.
I was involved in a small "prayer ministry" group in my local church (straight down the line Evangelical Church of England). I had become involved in it purely on the basis that I had previously been involved in a telephone counselling service (The Samaritans), and wanted to use my listening experience in a Christian context (despite its Christian inspired name, the Samaritans is a secular organisation, and forbids any sort of proseletysing). The prayer group operated on the basis of having one or two people available at the altar at the end of a service to offer prayer for anyone asking for it. Prayer, sympathy, counselling; that's what I had assumed I was there for. However, one Sunday, another lady in the team brought up an elderly woman to me who was clearly in some distress. "Just look at her hands! Can you pray for her?". I looked and saw that her fingers were bent and immobile; she told me it was chronic arthritis. I was actually horrified at having to do such a thing; I had never done such a thing before, and furthermore, a good school friend of mine had previously completely lost his faith, following a failed prayer for healing. However, in this case, there was clearly no escape from the situation; the woman was there, in distress, but with trusting and childlike faith. No option but to go for it. I put my hands on hers and went through the motions, not with much hope or faith, it has to be said. I can't really describe what happened except to say that some sort of "event" or discontinuity seemed to happen, which as a sceptical scientist I rationalised away as wishful thinking on my part. In truth, I was too spooked out to notice what happened, until I found out later. After the service, in the car park, I noticed the lady, who waved at me, smiling and bending her fingers to show they were completely free to move again, and then I realised that something must have happened. Later on, the woman who had brought her up to me told me she'd seen the hand relax and free up almost immediately.
However, since then, I've not become some wonder miracle healer; nothing like this has happened since then - and I did not seek it as it was quite nerve wracking! And as the years passed, the scientist in me has started to question what happened; tried to rationalise this - maybe an attack like that can pass off just like that; maybe it's a mental thing, etc etc. Then recently I shared this with some people from the church, and a physiotherapist told me in no uncertain terms that the regaining of mobility "just like that" definitely does not happen; it would have had to have been miraculous.
Now the dilemma this story presents to a scientist, it seems to me, is as follows. With my Christian hat on, I believe God does make things happen miraculously, and often those miracles "break the laws of science". And often scientists don't like this; because it seems like cheating. Hence the quotation from George Murphy's recent post:
: "We knew of old that God was
so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than
that, that He can make all things make themselves."
.. the implication being that somehow it's better if the "supernatural bit" is done right at the beginning, and the rest follows from the laws of science, without further divine intervention.
But I am sure many of us do believe in miracles. On John Burgeson's web-site you will find a moving story about how he and his wife were simultaneously inspired to adopt two children from an orphanage in the far east. They simultaneously wrote letters to the adoption agency without knowing the other one had done it. I would suggest that this "word from God" is just as much a miracle as the healing event that I described above. A piece of information "arrived" somehow in two peoples minds simultaneously that couldn't have been there before. (Though again, a skeptical scientist might attribute this to coincidence).
So the question is, where does one draw the line, and tell the skeptical scientist inside to be quiet? I feel that if we all did this more often, then we would see a lot more of the miraculous.
The other point I would like to raise is this concept of a "deceptive God". Some of Vernon's ideas have been attacked because, for example the creation of everything "with appearance of age" would be deceptive, and we don't like the idea of a God who deceives. I would only suggest here that it seems foolish to judge God on our terms. "I'm more moral than God, so I don't believe in such a God". If one considers the resurrection appearance of Christ on the Emmaus road, it could well be read as being extremely deceptive. Christ joins the two diciples, "but they were kept from recognising him" (Luke 24:16). Later on, Christ talks about himself in the third person, explaining everything in the scriptures concerning himself. It is only after the breaking of the bread that "their eyes were opened", and they saw who it really was. Later they reflect on how their hearts burned within them as he talked about the scriptures.
Why did Christ let them go on believing that he was just a stranger? Why not put them out of their gloom and despondency right away? Surely it was deceptive to appear to be someone else? I'm sure better theologians than I have expanded on this passage, but it seems to me that this might be telling us something quite significant about the nature of Divine revelation. Namely that God chooses to reveal things in his own time, and that what we see "before our eyes are opened" may well be completely different.
Of course I'm not suggesting we should stop doing science. I get the impression that some (though by no means all, and certainly not Vernon) people in the YEC movement seem to have a contempt for science, and that is something I really can't take. Science also reveals God's glory as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. But I feel too that we must acknowledge that we "see through a glass darkly". Reality (God's reality) may be drastically different from what we perceive.
Iain Strachan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 16:02:29 EST