Creation is complete, but not closed

A few days ago, Adam Omelianchuk on the BHT posted a query he’d read about how miracles can be distinguished from natural phenomena we are not yet able to explain. As the person Adam quoted put it:

The problem with miracles is that you can’t ever really conclude that they are “supernatural”. All you can conclude from them is that “we don’t understand how that happened – yet.”

It is notoriously difficult to come up with a definition of what a “miracle” is. An intervention by God into the workings of nature? Yes, but God is at work in “natural” phenomena as much as “supernatural” ones. Often, our understanding of miracles (and the language we use to describe them, of “interventions” or “interference”) betray a semi-Deistic perspective in which God has, by and large, left the universe to get on with its existence, but intervenes occasionally to nudge the universe in the direction he has in mind for it.

In contrast to this, I find Ken Miller’s distinction between a “complete” and “incomplete” universe helpful. As Miller writes (in an excerpt from his book Finding Darwin’s God):

As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. Their God fashioned a material world in which truly free and independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.

By contrast, Miller argues:

[C]reationists need a science that shows nature to be incomplete; they need a history of life whose events can only be explained as the result of supernatural processes. Put bluntly, the creationists are committed to finding permanent, intractable mystery in nature. To such minds, even the most perfect being we can imagine would not have been perfect enough to fashion a creation in which life would originate and evolve on its own. Nature must be flawed, static, and forever inadequate.

Now, even if you disagree with Miller’s characterisation of creationism and his conclusions regarding evolution, I do think his emphasis on God having made a creation that is complete is a helpful one.

We have good, biblical grounds for expecting the universe to be complete, and so it should come as no surprise to us that modern science and its “methodological naturalism” should have proven so successful in describing creation’s workings with ever-increasing accuracy and detail. Nor should we have any reason to insist that there must, in the end, be significant gaps in our scientific knowledge for which we are forced to invoke “miraculous” explanations. On the contrary: as our scientific knowledge increases, it only underlines and confirms our confidence in the completeness of creation and the competence of its Creator.

However, just because the universe is complete (thus vindicating “methodological naturalism” as a basis for science), doesn’t mean we should lurch to the opposite error, the error of “philosophical naturalism”, and insist that the universe must also be closed. Science may describe the usual way in which God orders things, but that does not restrict God’s freedom to act in other ways.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Creation is complete, but not closed

  1. Bror Erickson says:

    I think what I disagree with more is Millers assumption that God wanted to create a world “where truly free and independant beings could evolve.” And that that would mean he got it right the first time.
    I think that is a little presumptuous.
    I would agree with you though that science is able to describe the usual way God orders things. But God is not constrained to act only in that way.

  2. John H says:

    Bror: I haven’t read Miller’s book, but from what I understand of his position I do have some problems with it, and in particular with the way he seems to transfer his science back into his theology – i.e. allowing his understanding of God to be founded on a particular understanding of science. When people start saying, “this scientific theory shows that God wants to make a world of creatures with free will” or whatever, alarm bells start ringing.

    My personal view is that science and theology each offer narratives that need to be taken on their own merits and understood on their own terms. That’s not to say that they are “non-overlapping magisteria” with no overlap or relationship or interaction between them, just that it is a mistake to either (a) treat the Bible as a science textbook, or (b) treat science as a commentary on (or, even worse, correction of) the Bible.

  3. Bror Erickson says:

    “My personal view is that science and theology each offer narratives that need to be taken on their own merits and understood on their own terms. That’s not to say that they are “non-overlapping magisteria” with no overlap or relationship or interaction between them, just that it is a mistake to either (a) treat the Bible as a science textbook, or (b) treat science as a commentary on (or, even worse, correction of) the Bible.”

    Agreed!

  4. Rick Ritchie says:

    What would be the implications of this for a reading of Genesis 2:18? I follow how Miller makes a good case for methodological naturalism. But sometimes the problem is not so much that we need to keep gaps so that God can be an explanation, but that the text itself expresses incompleteness. There may be a reading that gets around this, but I can’t think of one that does justice to the text.

  5. Jeremy says:

    This is a very helpful distinction. Thanks for passing it on.

  6. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » A natural selection of creation and evolution posts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s