| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The concept of an externally governed versus autonomously self-ordered universe can be traced back to two concepts of nature: Nature versus nature. The concept of nature (with a small "n") represents the view of a world which is characterized by an empirically accessible set of ordered properties, behavior patterns, and cause-effect relationships. Nature (with a capital "N") is an early Greek, quasireligious concept which holds that nature is not merely ordered but it is also autonomous or self-ordered. This quasireligious concept was introduced by the Ionian "physikoi" in an attempt to depersonalize the Olympian myths of ancient Greece. Thus Nature became invested with some attributes normally reserved for deity, such as eternalness, autonomy, and necessity.Footnote1 The philosophical interpretation of nature with a capital "N" is often found embedded in scientific and naturalistic interpretations of events. Scientific cosmology usually speaks of nature with a capital "N". Biblical cosmology regards nature to be characterized by the view represented with a small "n".
The problem of whether the universe is self-ordered or externally governed gives rise to the question; How does one define the boundary, if it exists, between natural and supernatural processes? Furthermore, how do we determine whether the "laws of nature" are natural or supernatural in origin? A common view is; if the supernatural exists then it must cause natural events to behave in a way that is inconsistent with naturalistic explanations. In the Christian view God is sustained in addition to designer and creator. This view may be expressed by defining natural laws as physical descriptions of God's normal activity. Thus one possible definition of the supernatural/natural boundary might be the fundamental natural laws. These laws represent axiomatic assertions that can not be further reduced to other statements of the behavior of the physical world nor is there any physical explanation of either their necessity or origin. If the universe is self-ordered rather than externally ordered then the natural laws appear to have been boot strapped into existence or must be self-existent, eternal principles. If they were boot-strapped into existence through some interactive feedback with the formation of matter then the principle of uniformity (the belief that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe) would seem to be a very peculiar state of affairs.
Although science has the competence to study the physical behavior of matter, it does not (by its choice of methodology) have the ability to determine whether that behavior is self-governed or supernaturally-governed. The belief that nature is God-governed with respect to the behavior of physical phenomena is a belief that goes beyond the limited domain of scientific inquiry.Footnote2
Historically the universe has been regarded by philosophers and scientists as eternally self-existent. Scientific cosmologies represented by the steady state and oscillating universe theories are modern attempts to salvage this view. However the general acceptance of the Big Bang theory, representing the universe as having a one time beginning, seems to have provided a consensus view that the universe is temporal and not eternally self-existent.
Stephan Hawking tries to side-step this conclusion by postulating that the universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation. Thus energy is seen as eternally self-existent. The appearance of a vacuum is just the condition that is satisfied when negative and positive energy are perfectly balanced. What appears to be the creative event of the universe then becomes a quantum mechanical instability that spontaneously occurred causing the energy balance to be disrupted. The energy thereby released then transformed itself into the universe as we now know it.
Naive fundamentalism tends to view God commanding by fiat, creating instantaneously, producing miracles that stand in contradiction or opposition to 'natural' phenomena. These claims are not so much false as they are terribly misleading when accompanied by claims implying that they are exclusive or normative modes of Gods interaction with the world. Such a view denies the importance God has attached to human agency and His actions through process (e.g., history). Human agency and process are both attested to by the biblical record of God's interactions with the world.
In biblical cosmology there is a view of creation in which the object of creation instantaneously pops into existence in its final mature form. Is there any biblical evidence to support such a concept? There is little indication that such a view can be supported. If it can be supported what is our evidential reference? One evidential basis would be the character of other divine actions.
Let us consider the revelation of God's word and His incarnation as two examples of how God acts. The bible itself did not immediately pop into existence but was the product of considerable history. The scriptures did not magically appear on golden tablets but were written in the context of an extended historical process. Likewise, Christ did not pop into existence fully mature and available for immediate execution but entered the world, at least from all 'outward biological appearances', in much the same way as the rest of us (i.e., a child, born of a woman although admittedly his conception was unique).
If something so important and urgent to God and man as Christianity, so to speak 'evolved' from history over several thousand years, why is there any expectation that the universe or man were not created through temporally extended processes as well? Thus we can find no sound basis for believing formation is antithetical to creation. Formation is simply a temporally extended process that may well include creative activity but it in no way excludes it. Formation is not equivalent to physical determinism.
In theological interpretations of the Old and New Testament biblical accounts of creation of the universe the term creatio ex nihilo is frequently used. At this point in the discussion it will be useful to discuss the meaning and origin of this term as well as contrasting views. There are three contrasting views concerning creation:
• Creatio Ex Nihilo; creation out of nothing, a theological view derived from biblical statements concerning creation and sometimes associated with the Big Bang theory;
• Creatio Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit; nothing is made out of nothing, a materialists view of the cosmos and associated with the older static universe cosmologies;
• Creatio Continua; continuous creation, a theological view also claiming to have a biblical basis from the point of view that God has continued his creative acts which were not confined to a particular point in time, and also borrowed by materialists (minus any theistic reference) in attempts to revitalize the steady state theory.
Creatio ex nihilo is not explicitly stated in the scriptures although it is implied. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was espoused as a refutation of other mythical cosmologies and as a counter argument to certain dualisms that regarded physical creation as inherently evil. The Greek claims regarding Nature as co-eternal with the divine encouraged the development of a doctrine of creation with a central focus on creatio ex nihilo.Footnote3 According to BarbourFootnote4 the church historian Jaroslav Pelikan in "Creation and Causality in the History of Christian Thought" points out that creatio ex nihilo may be implied in the Old Testament but its first explicit appearance is in the intertestamental period (2Macc. 7:28). In the New Testament it appears in just two passages (Rom. 4:17 and Heb. 11:3).
Rom 4:17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Pelikan shows that the idea of ex nihilo was developed post-biblically as a defense of the goodness of the world and the absolute sovereignty of God against Gnostic ideas regarding matter as evil or as the product of an inferior deity. Jacob (Theology of the Old Testament) says that some texts imply creation is a completed process but other texts, generally more ancient, draw much less distinction between creation and conservation of the world. This leads to the idea of creatio continua. Thus continuing creation stood in opposition of ex nihilo creation. Pelikan traces the subordination of continuous to instantaneous creation through the Middle Ages, Reformation, and Enlightenment and concludes that neglect of continuing creation has made it difficult to interpret evolution as the means of creation.
Scientific cosmologies describe formation mechanisms. The fallacy of reductive materialism occurs when the philosophical assertion is made that there is no underlying purpose to the mechanism or equating explanatory mechanisms of operation or formation with self-existent attributes. For example Barbour points out that at the lowest level, mechanical explanation of an automobile's operation does not rule out recognition of
(a) its coordinated functioning (where function refers to the contribution of the parts to the integrated activity of the whole), or
(b) the purposes of the human designer who planned such functioning.
On the other hand the Christian must guard against 'God of the Gaps' tendencies when countering this fallacy. Here we must seriously consider that it is precisely the operation of fundamental natural laws in the formation processes, not their violation, which has brought about the intended result, and thereby displayed God's purpose in creation. As with the operation of the automobile there would be no 'gaps' in the scientific account of operation.
It must be kept in mind as pointed out by Henri Poincare,Footnote5 "Every conclusion supposes premises: these premises themselves either are self-evident and need no demonstration, or can be established only by relying upon other propositions, and since we can not go back thus to infinity, every deductive science, ..., must rest on a certain number of undemonstratable axioms." When it is stated that science has refuted arguments for theistic supernaturalism this can usually be attributed to the fallacy of reductionism (the conclusion that a mechanical description of composition completely and totally defines the reality of the object described).
Frequently this fallacy is committed because of unintentionally or deceptively hidden presuppositions. Extreme presuppositionalism leads to Creation Science, Atheism, Naturalism and possibly any other 'ism one can presuppose. Extreme presuppositionalism assumes that the presuppositions do not merely influence but actually dominate the interpretation of data. Unless one accepts that science or theology, while both are vulnerable to presuppositionalism, is self correcting with the collection of sufficient data and continued attempts to reconcile the data with theory, data, observation, and experience, then all beliefs, both scientific and religious, become essentially fideistic.
Howard J. Van Till, et al., Portraits of Creation, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Portraits of Creation, pg. 270.
Portraits of Creation
Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Relgion, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.
Henri Poincare, Non-Euclidean Geometries and the Non-Euclidean World, from Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Feigl and Brodbeck, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953.
Read on to the next section in "Cosmology"
Return to the Table of Contents
