Summary Statements - 3.1 of X - Miracles and the ‘Laws of Nature’
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” - Isaac Newton, 1675 letter to Robert Hooke
The subject of “miracles” and “laws of nature” is a complex one that is fraught with potential misunderstandings. It has been the source of ongoing disagreements between Christians & nonChristians of all persuasions since the 1500’s, especially since it has such a strong relationship with “science.”
I will argue that by using the Bible as our primary authority we should rethink our typical understanding of ‘laws of nature’ as nonBiblical and that ‘miracles’ should be understood as signs which validate the Biblical messenger in a world where God is at work all of the time. I will also provide an alternate definition (and I think a more Biblical one) of ‘laws of nature’ as being “God’s ordinary/faithful working in His creation.”
The approach where we start with a Scriptural view of nature and miracles will necessarily impact how we interact, dialog, and debate with nonChristians and liberal Christians, as their starting points - presuppositions- normally take as a given nonBiblical typical definitions of “miracles” and “laws of nature.” As this discussion will necessarily take me into theological, philosophical, and scientific areas where I am not as well versed, I am going to draw heavily from a few key Christian authors: John C Sharp (for the basic structure of my argument), Donald M Mackay, and Colin Brown (for his Biblical theological explanation of miracles).
This is also called a presuppositional approach to apologetics (defending the faith). I am arguing that Christians have historically, over the last 400+ years, misunderstood the Scriptural meaning of miracles, esp. when defined in terms of the so-called ‘laws of nature.’ We’ve basically defined miracles in terms of science (‘laws of nature’), instead of defining science (‘laws of nature’) in terms of:
“Nature” as God’s Creation that He faithfully upholds moment-by-moment, and,
A Scriptural view of miracles
Many orthodox Christians today argue that the primary issue began in the 1800’s and has to do primarily with how one understands the historical sciences (e.g., geology, paleontology, biology, cosmology, anthropology, etc.) from a Scriptural perspective vs. atheistic-theistic evolution; however, this misunderstanding actually started hundreds of years earlier during the development of early modern science (in the 1600’s), when Christians, then, as well as today, began to mistakenly view the new operational sciences (especially astronomy and physics) as the outworking of God’s mathematically-determined ‘laws of nature’ that He put in place at creation.
This approach to viewing science has significant implications for how to teach science from a Scriptural perspective. At the end of this blog, I will provide my assessment of several popular ministries concerning whether they have unknowingly accepted a non-Biblical view of miracles and the so-called ‘laws of nature.” These ministries include Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, Henry Morris’ Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, theistic evolutionists as represented by BioLogos, and Intelligent Design proponents as represented by the Discovery Institute. I will also provide suggestions for good homeschooling resources that cover creation and science topics from a Biblical and presuppositional perspective. Please see the Table of Contents for more information for other implications for teaching science and math from a presuppositional perspective.
What do people mean by “miracle”?
The typical starting point for a discussion or debate concerning miracles is that miracles are defined as violations of the laws of nature. This definition of a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature is the same as the argument by David Hume, who in the late 1700’s stated that -
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle … is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.” (David Hume, Hume on Religion, London, 1971, p. 210)
This definition, while plausible and popular, needs to be rejected by Christians. Hume was assuming laws of nature based upon 100+ years of successful characterizations/descriptions of “nature” by means of mathematical formulas - a view stemming from a deterministic/mechanistic way of viewing “nature” and how “God” works in “nature” - heavily influenced by the mathematical-deterministic scientific successes of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.
Hume was NOT starting with the Scriptures. He was starting from the apparent successes of the relatively new scientific enterprise and was arguing against miracles based upon his “belief” (faith) in the uniformity and eternality of the recently discovered “laws of nature.” Hume’s understanding of nature was not a Biblical one - and neither have the majority of the views of “nature” and the “laws of nature” as propounded and taught by many prominent sincere Christians & nonChristians over the subsequent 300 years (as I will argue).
The issue of the relation of miracles to science seems to focus on two commonly proposed theistic approaches about this relationship:
In a miracle, God works against or contrary to the laws of nature. This may also be stated as God works against or contrary to his laws in nature, or
In a miracle, God works in conjunction with his laws in nature. (see Sharp, p. 2).
I will argue that both of these typically suggested theistic views of the meaning of ‘miracle’ are not Biblical. The problem being located in our understanding of the status of what are called ‘laws of nature.’ The two approaches given above confer autonomy to ‘nature’. An autonomy that must be questioned.
Historically orthodox Christians, as they have sought to describe ‘nature’ and ‘laws of nature’ (e.g., C Hodge, CS Lewis, H Morris, Westminster Confession of Faith, etc.) again and again have unknowingly surrendered ground by failing to break the stranglehold that the concepts of ‘nature,’ ‘miracle,’ and the so-called ‘laws of nature’ seem to exert. (see Sharp, p. 2).
What is a Biblical understanding of “nature” and the “laws of nature”?
I will first argue what a Biblical understanding of “nature” is NOT.
A Biblical understanding of “nature” and “laws of nature” does NOT grant ANY independent autonomy to God’s creation. “Nature” (Creation) never HAS to operate in a certain (mathematically determined) way without God’s continuing and ongoing input. God is portrayed in Scripture as being completely independent of His creation, and able to do anything at any time according to His good pleasure. God responds when His people pray to Him. If you reflect on the Old Testament and New Testament, you will find numerous instances of God’s working ‘miraculous’ events - from Creation through Moses to Jesus and the apostles. You will not find a hint that God MUST work in a certain way. He normally provides the sun and rain and food and shelter according to His faithfulness, but He may choose to withhold His favor, or send calamity, if His people disobey HIs moral laws (see esp. the Old Testament). He may also bless His people with prosperity, health, children, etc. as they obey His moral laws (see esp. the Old Testament).
Thus, any definition of “nature” or “laws of nature” that grants any level of autonomy or semi-autonomy to ‘nature’ (Creation) is flawed. And, unfortunately, due to the apparent success of the natural sciences since the 1600s, autonomous views of “nature” and “laws of nature” have been uncritically accepted as part of Christian thinking. By doing so, Christians have already lost the battle of ideas on this topic as there is NO autonomy for nature (Creation), as God continually upholds His Creation - moment by moment! Nothing happens without God being in control.
This is what I mean when I say that we must develop our worldview from a presuppositional perspective. If we accept (presuppose) the Scriptures as our starting point, they will inform us as to what mindset we should have towards God and His Creation. God’s creation is NOT autonomous. “Nature” is NOT autonomous. There are no fixed “laws of nature” that God must violate in order for Him, or His messengers, to perform miracles. There is no Hebrew word for “nature” in the Old Testament - the closest equivalent word being “God” or “creation.” God upholds HIs Creation moment-by-moment.
Now you may say - but what about evil and calamity? - does God cause evil and calamity too? The short answer is that because of the Fall Creation is under a curse - but God has brought redemption from the curse through Jesus Christ, ultimately culminating in the New Creation as Jesus’ return. I will attempt to provide a more detailed answer to that question, though, in a separate blog. My main point is that by giving “Nature” autonomy - as many, perhaps most, Christians do - we have given up holding a Scriptural view of how God works in His Creation, and we are destined to be logically and semantically defeated by the arguments of Hume and his current day followers (esp. nonChristians and liberal Christians).
How are we then as Christians supposed to think of the “laws of nature”? How are we view the so-called ‘laws of nature’ from a Scriptural perspective, then? Certainly, since the 1600’s (see esp. Kepler, Galileo, and Newton), man has been able to discover and describe certain aspects of ‘how’ God works in his creation (especially the motion of the heavens and local motion) via mathematical formulas. These formulas give the appearance of fixed “laws.” In fact, the Deists and naturalists assume that the universe was created with these fixed laws and that these laws have been constantly in place since creation. These formulas form the basis for modern (operational) science and technology - which has certainly been quite successful from an application standpoint. Viewed from a Scriptural perspective, these so-called ‘laws’ are consistent with God’s faithfulness to His Creation.
But, do these mathematical descriptions of God’s normal workings in His creation require Him to operate in the same way in the future? No, they do not! So, we are caught in a tension. God regularly and faithfully works in a given way - which can be described by a certain mathematical formulas - but, using the Scriptural mindset as our guide, we cannot be sure that he will ALWAYS work in exactly the same way.
There is a logical problem associated with ‘laws of nature’. It’s called the problem of induction. You cannot go from particulars to a generalization (law) unless you are all-knowing - omniscient. If a red ant emerges from an ant hill, and another, and another, etc., you can be pretty sure that the remaining ants are also red - but you cannot know that. It’s the same with so-called mathematical laws.
So here is where there is a fine line. We trust God’s faithfulness to His creation. This allows man to ‘discover’ and use mathematical formulas (“laws”) to describe His workings in Creation - and perhaps even discover new ones! This has brought about the successes in science and technology that we have seen over the last 300+ years. But, from a theological, philosophical, and logical perspective, we cannot KNOW that God will ALWAYS work the same way in the future. But, because of God’s faithfulness to man and His Creation, for the purposes of living out our lives in His Creation, we can gratefully use these mathematical formulas as useful tools to further the improvement of God’s Creation, and help our fellow man (and especially other believers). We do all of this knowing that, should God need to do things differently - at any time and for whatever reason - He is not bound by His Creation or ‘nature’ as an autonomous entity. Since God upholds the universe moment-by-moment, He can change His actions ‘on-the-fly’ as needed.
What is a Scriptural view of miracles?
A Scriptural view of miracles will include a discussion of miracles as signs and wonders (see esp. Colin Brown, That You May Believe). A Biblical view of miracles will attempt to discern the meaning of the sign, and how that sign affirms or denies the associated messenger bringing the sign. Biblical miracles do not need to be extremely unusual events (for instance, Luke 2:12 states that “and this will be a sign for you: you will find the baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger.”). Biblical miracles are intended to validate the message and the messenger as being sent by God.
The most important miracle in Scripture is the resurrection of Jesus. See this quote from C. Brown, That You May Believe, 1998, Wipf & Stock Publishers, pgs. 106-107, emphasis mine:
“In general, the New Testament writers speak of Jesus being raised from the dead or being raised by the Father (e.g. Acts 2:24, 4:10, 10:40; 1 Co 15:4, 12-14, 20, 23, 38; Gal 1:1; Heb 13:20). Paul could even attribute the resurrection to the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4). The New Testament does not say that Jesus raised himself…. The point of this whole line of argument is this. In the New Testament the resurrection of Jesus is not simply his restoration to life. It is also the reversal of the verdict and the sentence that was pronounced on him. In terms of the Jewish law the only construction that could be placed on his death was that he was under the curse of God (Gal 3:13; cf. Deu 21:23). The slogan “Jesus be cursed!” (1 Co 12:3) probably represents the official Jewish attitude on how Jesus should be regarded by orthodox Jews. Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer with messianic pretensions who was trying to lead the people astray (Mat 28:63-66; Mar 14:64-65; Joh 11:47-53). … In short, the Jewish leaders saw Jesus as someone who was performing signs and wonders in order to get a following for his false teaching and practices. If this is so, the resurrection takes on new meaning. It represents the Father’s verdict on Jesus his Son, which reverses the verdict of the Jewish hierarchy. As such, it is an endorsement of the works of Jesus, making it clear that they are not work of sorcery punishable by death, but truly works of God. Jesus was not a false prophet or sorcerer, but the one whom God would raise up in the end time who would speak God’s name (Act 3:22-23; 7:37, cf. Deu 18:15-19; Joh 6:14). The resurrection tells us that the one who raised Jesus is the one who was working in him all along.”
Note that nowhere in the above discussion (or in Scripture) is there any hint of “fixed” mathematical laws of nature that God has instituted that cannot be broken except for God’s intervention. It is assumed that any signs and wonders that Jesus (and other prophets in Scripture for that matter) has done during his life were real - but that the Jews wrongly attributed the power to perform such signs and wonders to Satan (vs God).
All of the miracles, signs, and wonders described in Scripture have deeper meanings with reference to the messenger and the message. Then, as now, people understood such acts as contrary to the way that God normally works in the world. The underlying question was always one of whether it was the personal, omnipotent, God of the Bible who was behind the miracles, or whether it was someone else (Satan, false prophet, etc.). I encourage you to check out Colin Brown’s works on miracles (see the Resources page). For a more in-depth and nuanced discussion of a Scriptural view of miracles, see Colin Brown’s “That You May Believe: Miracles and Faith Then and Now” Chapter 6 “What Then Is A Miracle?”
Much more needs to be said about a Scriptural view miracles and the (so-called) ‘laws of nature’, but I will need to pause at this point.
Below are examples/resources concerning non-presuppositional thinking about miracles and the so-called ‘laws of nature.” But first, I will start with resources concerning presuppositional thinking (Scriptural approaches) about Biblical creation vs the so-called ‘laws of nature.” As Christians seeking to teach a Scriptural view of creation and miracles and the so-called ‘laws of nature,” I would start with the presuppositional resources, and use the the non-presuppositional resources with caution as discussed below.
Resources for PRESUPPOSITIONAL thinking about Biblical Creation vs the (so-called uniformitarian) ‘laws of nature’
Note: The resources below focus primarily on a presuppositional and Scriptural views of historical science.
Ken Ham & AiG - (From Wikipedia) - Ken Ham is an Australian Christian, young Earth creationist, apologist, and former science teacher, living in the United States (KY). He is the founder, CEO, and former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Christian apologetics organization that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter.
Ham advocates biblical literalism, teaching that the Creation narrative in the Book of Genesis is historical fact and that the universe and the Earth were created together approximately 6,000 years ago, contrary to the scientific consensus that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
Ken Ham’s approach to speaking and teaching focuses on a plain literal (and orthodox) reading of Gen 1-11 as contrasted with evolution. He started an organization called Answers in Genesis and has brought much good to the Kingdom of God by promoting a plain, literal interpretation of Genesis including a young earth and global worldwide flood.
I am in agreement with Ham and AiG on these very important points and his approach is basically presuppositional in its essence. I find Ken Ham’s style very engaging. I like his Australian accent. I like his cartoons and graphics. He is correct when he argues that both Evolution and Creation (in 6 days) are BOTH religious worldviews.
Ken Ham has debated many evolutionists and atheists, and I’m confident that many people have come to saving faith in Christ, or have had their understanding of Gen 1-11 clarified and strengthened, through his ministry. He correctly argues that the Bible should be accepted by Christians as the primary authority for knowing and living, and he takes the first eleven chapters of Genesis as history to be understood via the plain meaning of the words (day means 24 hrs, creation was instantaneous, death does not occur until the Fall, worldwide flood, etc.).
The AiG site gives a good discussion of a Biblical view miracles on a different page (see Did Miracles Really Happen? by Paul F. Taylor, 6/7/11).
However, on a different page of the AiG site, I do differ with the meanings of the ‘laws of nature’ and miracles that are expressed on one of the pages of the On the blog page “Supernatural or Science: How Do We Explain Miracles?” (by Avery Foley & Troy Lacey, 10/3/14), it states:
“Since Creation, God has imposed natural laws that He established and ordained during Creation Week, and continues to sustain (Gen 1:14-15, Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3). However, God is not bound by these same laws that He upholds for creation; He transcends them and gives them their force. And although He usually allows things to occur naturally and can work miracles within that natural law (such as miracles of timing), at time He acts in supernatural ways, which we also call miracles.”
Note that this statement seems very similar to Hume’s definition of miracles above and appears to grant a certain level of autonomy to the ‘law of nature.’ I would encourage AiG to do some clean up of some of the pages like this on their site per the comments made earlier in this article. This shows how easy it is to be sound on confronting the historical sciences from presuppositional perspective but to yield ground the seeking to review and discuss the operational sciences.
Ken Ham’s books and the AiG site are excellent resources for teaching children, and adults, the proper understanding of Gen 1-11 and for critiquing evolution from a presuppositional perspective (one that uses the Bible as the primary authority).
I have also found Dr. Terry Mortenson’s (a significant AiG contributor) books and writings to be especially helpful. You can access many excellent articles that Terry Mortenson has written over the last 30 years on the AiG site at this link. For instance, an example article by Dr. Mortenson is “Genesis 1-11: Essential for a Biblical Worldview.” Also, an excellent article by Dr. Mortenson which discusses some of the weaknesses of the ID movement (see discussion below) is at this link: "“Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are They Related?” You can also access one of Dr. Mortenson’s youtube videos at this link “Millions of Years: The Idea’s Unscientific Origin and Catastrophic Consequences.”
John Byl - John Byl is Professor Emeritus at Trinity Western University. He is an excellent theologian and writer and writes from a presuppositional perspective. He has published numerous articles in scientific, philosophical, and theological journals. He is the author of God and the Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe and The Divine Challenge: On Matter, Mind, Math, and Meaning. He is also co-author with Tom Goss of an excellent 67-page booklet which is available for free download at the following link: How Should Christians Approach Origins? . I encourage homeschooling parents to download this booklet and review it with their children.
John Byl also has an excellent blog at the following link: bylogos.blogspot.com . Please note that John is retired and does not post very frequently these days, but if you spend some time exploring posts from years past, you will be greatly rewarded. For example, see this post (Biologos critique) and this post (Aliens and Christians) and this post (Useful Sites) and this post (John Byl materials) and this post (Big Bang Christianity?) and this post (Combining Adam and Evolution) and this post (A Defective Case for Biblical Faith) and this post (A Moving Earth?) and this post (On Mature Creation) and this post (Grudem’s Old Earth Inconsistency), and this post (Making Sense of Enns) and this post (PCA Divided on Biblical Adam) and this post (Genesis versus Dr. Tim Keller) and this post (RC Sproul Waffles on Creation) and this post (Villainous Confessions - please note the link to Owen’s article is bad but it can be found at this link).
The Creation Club - The Creation Club can be found at this link. The Creation Club was formed by David Rives Ministries, a non-profit 501(c)3, to give gifted writers and contributors a place to share their content relating to Biblical Creation. All participants and contributors are open to express varying personal opinion, as long as content submitted holds to and/or supports the conditions found below. All participants and contributors must:
1. Have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.
2. Believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
3. Believe in a Creation Week of literal, 24-hour, days, and a universal age of less than 10,000 years.
The site appears to argue from a presuppositional perspective, but I cannot be sure as there are a lot of resources listed that would need to be checked. This looks like it would be a good site for homeschooling parents, with plenty of age-appropriate materials. Please review and use as you see fit.
Resources using the NON-PRESUPPOSITIONAL approach concerning miracles and the ‘laws of nature’
Note: The resources below focus on non-presuppositional views of both operational and historical science.
Below are examples of documents, people, and organizations that do NOT use a presuppositional approach when discussing miracles, and the so-called ‘laws of nature.” While these approaches may contain many good points, they are not faithful to the Scriptures on the topics of the meaning of miracles and ‘laws of nature’, and, hence, yield too much ground to nonChristians and liberal Christians.
Just because a document, person, or organization is listed below does not necessarily mean that I think ill of their writings. Rather, I think they should use more care in how they discuss these topics. This is especially true of Henry Morris’ books and organizations. I disagree with his using the second law of thermodynamics to “prove” (or argue) the Christian interpretation of the “facts” are Biblical: I think this is the wrong approach to use when dealing with (atheistic or theistic) evolutionists. It is far better to state one’s presuppositions up front rather than argue that there can be a neutral “scientific” way to discuss Creation (nature).
The same is true of the Intelligent Design folks; however, with the ID authors and organizations, please note that many of them hold to old-universe/old-earth views and may hold to some type of theistic evolution (this is not true of Henry Morris’ writings and organizations). There are some excellent and interesting arguments to be made concerning how modern science cannot explain “irreducible complexity,” but because the ID folks do not start with the Scriptures, the best they can do is poke holes in standard evolutionary theories (good), all they end up with is stating that there must be a “Creator” to account for all of the “information” in the biological sciences. This is a far cry from the God of the Bible.
Accordingly, please use these resources wisely, recognizing that they do not always start with the Scriptures as their starting point, and, if they do start with the Scriptures, they may not be viewing nature and miracle from a Biblical perspective.
C.S. Lewis - Miracles, 1947 - I am hesitant to critique CS Lewis due to his significant positive influence on my early Christian life, but I must. Lewis begins Chapter 2 (The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist) with the following statement: “I use the word miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.” Lewis admits that many theologians might not agree with this, but notes that this is what most people mean when they use the term ‘miracle.’
Note that Lewis capitalizes the word ‘Nature.’ Note that the chapter title is “The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist.” I argue that all of these points (Nature, Naturalist vs Supernaturalist) are in essence capitulations to nonChristian ways of thinking. While the book has excellent points when arguing from a philosophical perspective, it is not arguing from a distinctly Christian presuppositional perspective, which takes God as wholly independent from His Creation (nature), grants no autonomy to His Creation, and views the personal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as faithfully working in His creation and upholding it moment-by-moment. For a more in-depth and nuanced discussion of CS Lewis’ view of miracles, see Colin Brown’s “That You May Believe: Miracles and Faith Then and Now” Chapter 4 “C.S. Lewis to the Rescue - Well Almost.”
Charles Hodge - Systematic Theology - Volume 1 - Charles Hodge lived in the 1800’s, and he was a prominent orthodox Presbyterian minister, seminary professor, and systematic theologian in his day. Hodge interacted with the evolutionists of his day, and wrote extensively about miracles and the ‘laws of nature’ in his Systematic Theology. Hodge lived at a time (1797–1878) during which the whole age of the earth debate (and later the creation/evolution controversy) was emerging, and the idea of an ancient earth was being established in western academia. Hodge rejected a plain meaning of the six-day Genesis creation (approximately 6,000 years ago) because of what he considered undeniable facts in geology that proved the earth was millions of years old. Although Hodge was an “old-earth” creationist, I believe where he makes his prior mistake was in seeking to reconcile a Biblical view of ‘miracles’ and ‘laws of nature’ with the humanist “scientific view” of ‘miracles’ and ‘laws of nature’ - with the humanist ‘scientific view’ being the controlling influence.
Hodge occasionally seems to get caught making statements that imply “autonomous” thinking about nature and subsequently makes ambiguous statements. He states “These physical forces act of necessity, blindly, and uniformly. They are everywhere and always the same… Light, heat, electricity, and chemical affinities are everywhere the same in the mode of operations.” (pg. 451, electronic version).
Hodge maintains that the ‘reign of law’ gives laws which are immutable, uniform in operation, and which cannot be disregarded. Hodge is thus caught in a curious tension between the concept of autonomous law prevalent in his day, and the sovereign providence of God. This tension is well displayed in the following extended quotation: (see Sharp, Miracles and the ‘Laws of Nature’, pg. 8)
“The phrase ‘Laws of Nature’ is … generally used in one or the other of two senses. It either means an observed regular sequence of events, without any reference to the cause by which that regularity of sequence is determined; or it means a uniformly acting force in nature. In this last sense we speak of the laws of gravitation, light, heat, electricity, etc. …
The chief question is, In what relation does God stand to these laws? The answer to that question, as drawn from the Bible, is, First, that He is their author. He endowed matter with the forces, and ordained, that they should be uniform. Secondly, He is independent of them. He can change, annihilate, or suspend them at pleasure. He can operate with them or without them. The Reign of Law must not be made to extend over Him who made the laws. Thirdly, As the stability of the Universe, and the welfare, and even the existence of organised creatures, depend on the uniformity of the laws of nature, God never does disregard them except for the accomplishment of some high purpose. He, in the ordinary operations of His Providence, operates with and through the laws which He has ordained. He governs the material , as well as the moral world by law.” (pg. 451, electronic version)
“The tension is clear. Hodge grants too much autonomy to law. It thus becomes a third realm. There is God, nature - and in between law! There is an autonomous realm of law which God can set aside to achieve his high purpose. But surely the law is the law of God? Therefore, to annihilate is own law is to work against himself.” (See John C Sharp, Miracles and the ‘Laws of Nature’, p 9). See also AiG article “Marrying Theology to So-Called Science” Part 1 by Calvin Smith, 2/27/23, and also Parts 2, 3, and especially Part 4.
Henry Morris - From Wikipedia - Henry Morris (1928-2006) was a noted young earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be “the father of modern creation science.” He co-authored The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb in 1961.
I am hesitant to critique Henry Morris and the affiliated organizations (CRS, ICR) due to how much good they have brought to the Kingdom of God by promoting a plain, literal interpretation of Genesis including a young earth and global worldwide flood. I am in agreement with Morris and the affiliated organizations on these very important points. Where I differ with them is in their methods for interacting with unbelievers and Christians who espouse theistic evolution. They seem to think that “science” is neutral - but it is not neutral!
Where do I differ with Mr. Morris? Unsurprisingly, it is on his views of the ‘laws of nature’ and on whether or not we can have common ground in discussions with nonChristian scientists and liberal Christians/scientists.
Concerning the ‘laws of nature’ - Mr. Morris in his book “The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications” , states in the Preface to the Sixth Printing (dated 5/25/64),
“… we emphatically do not question uniformity of the basic laws of physics (e.g., the two laws of thermodynamics) as charged by reviewers. We strongly emphasized that these laws have been in operation since the end of the creation period. The first teaches that no creation is now taking place, and the second enunciates the universal law of decay. These laws are basic in geology and in all science, and are clearly set forth in Scripture. This is the true principle of uniformity. We only question the assumption of uniformity of rates of geological and other processes, and even here only as required by Biblical revelation. It is well known that the second law of thermodynamics implies decay but does not say anything about the rate of decay. There is nothing fundamentally inviolable about even rates of radioactive decay.”
Comment: Note the emphasis on the “laws of physics” (esp. the laws of thermodynamics). This is not a Scriptural way of speaking about how God works in His Creation. Note also that the authors state that these “laws” are “clearly set forth in Scripture.” I ask you, where are the first and second “laws” of thermodynamics set forth in Scripture?
As mentioned earlier, Scripture does not teach anything about an autonomous nature that has “laws” that it must obey (independent of God). So one must be very careful, when arguing with nonChristians and liberal Christians, about using “laws of nature” (even those of thermodynamics) as a point of argument to persuade or prove the authenticity of Scriptural account of nature (Creation).
It is better to be upfront about one’s presuppositions (we are taking the plain meaning of Scripture as our authority), and then argue from there. Note that nonChristians and liberal Christians also have their presuppositions about God and origins (typically an evolutionary view of origins) - it’s just that they won’t acknowledge them.
Interestingly, it’s not as if the authors (Morris & Whitcomb) fail to see that different presuppositions are involved, as follows (near the end of the Preface to the Sixth Printing):
“It is at this point that the authors feel that these critical reviewers have been most unfair. As we have stressed repeatedly in our book, the real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details [PB - “facts”] of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters. This is why the first four chapters and the two appendixes are devoted to detailed exposition and analysis of the Biblical teachings on creation, the Flood, and related topics. The last three chapters attempt then, in an admittedly preliminary and incomplete manner, to explain the pertinent geological and other scientific data in the light of these teachings. The criticisms, however, have almost always centered upon various details of the latter, and have ignored the former and more important matters. The very strong and detailed Biblical evidences for a recent creation, the universal effects of the Curse, and the worldwide destructive effects of the Deluge, have evidently been neglected as peripheral and inconsequential as far as these reviewers are concerned. Of course, they cite opinions to the effect that various interpretations are possible, etc., but none ever deals with the Biblical evidence.
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the authors and their critics seem to be operating on two entirely different sets of presuppositions. On the one hand, scientific data are interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation; on the other hand, both revelation and the scientific data are interpreted in the light of the philosophic [PB - and atheistic] assumption of uniformity.”
Here Morris and Whitcomb correctly identify that different presuppositions drive how the data will be interpreted (“all facts are theory-laden”). But Morris and Whitcomb incorrectly assume that we may be able to “reason” (persuade?) nonChristians and liberal Christians along the lines of what might be called “neutral ‘scientific’ common ground.”
Is there such a thing as ‘neutral’ scientific common ground? - For my critique of whether or not Christians operating from a presuppositional perspective can have common ground with nonChristians (and liberal Christians) doing science, I will refer the reader to Gary North’s, Is the World Running Down?, Appendix A - The Disastrous Quest for Scientific Common Ground, p. 187. Anytime we move away from a Biblical understanding of God’s Creation (nature) and ‘laws of nature’ and miracles as signs, we are on perilous ground. See Gary North’s critique of the Scientific Creationist movement’s methods and note what happens when the “laws of nature” (such as the laws of thermodynamics, including entropy) are used instead of the Bible to defend creation in six days versus evolution over billions of years in the public square. For information, below is an extended excerpt from Appendix A “The Disastrous Quest for Scientific Common Ground”:
“What I argue in this appendix will alienate a lot of my readers. I argue that the methodologies of the Scientific Creationists and the modern Darwinian evolutionists are remarkably similar, and that this has compromised the Scientific Creation movement. …
Defenders of God’s six-day creation have constantly appealed to the second law of thermodynamics(5) in order to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that the autonomous operations of an impersonal, increasingly random and disorderly universe could have led to an increase of order and coherence, meaning the conditions necessary for the supposed evolution of life(6). They argue along these lines: “The Darwinian evolutionists claim to be scientists, but they ignore the operations of what is probably the most fundamental law of science, the second law of thermodynamics. They refuse to appeal to God to explain the origin of life - an order-producing, increasingly complex phenomenon - which must be regarded by consistent scientists as an unexplainable, impossible event in a truly autonomous universe that is governed as a whole by an invariable law of decay and increasing randomness. Thus, they are not truly scientific, for they refuse to apply this invariable scientific law to the study of origins. This shows that they apply scientific laws selectively. This illegitimate selectivity therefore shows that they are not really disciplined by a rigorously scientific methodology.”
The Darwinians respond with arguments along these lines: The creationists claim to be scientists, but they constantly appeal to God’s miracles in order to explain historic events. They cannot prove the existence of God, and they cannot offer evidence that would enable us to explain how God interacts with the world. They even deny that His miracles are subject to the restraints of predictable scientific law. They apply scientific laws selectively. This illegitimate selectivity shows they are not really disciplined by a rigorously scientific methodology.”
I think these arguments are very similar. They both focus on the same issue: the opposition’s failure to adhere to a methodology that applies absolutely fixed scientific laws to all the available empirical evidence. I intend to show that the arguments on both sides are so similar - and initially so compelling intellectually - that it should lead Christians to reconsider the whole approach of trying to apply absolutely fixed, impersonal laws to all available evidence. …”
Should we teach ‘Creation Science’ and evolution in the public classrooms? - For another critique by Gary North concerning the bankruptcy of trying to have a neutral “creation science'“ in the public classroom, see his Appendix B, “The End of Illusions: ‘Creationism’ in the Public Schools" (p. 206) of Is the World Running Down?
How would I propose actually doing science when operating from a presuppositional perspective? First, I would ensure that my presuppositions were clearly identified up front. There is no neutral science. There are no neutral facts. All facts are theory-laden. Interestingly, much of the actual science I might actually do from a Christian presuppositional perspective would probably be very similar to that of ICR and CRS, but I would never try to argue “from the science” for a young earth, a recent literal Adam & Eve (and associated Fall), no death before the Fall, or worldwide flood. I might argue that from my presuppositions, the evidence (facts) I see are consistent with a young earth, etc., but I would not argue that this “proves” this to be true. There is no “proof” in science - due to the problem of induction. NonChristian scientists start from different presuppositions. It’s really a question of authority - do we believe God as He is presented in the Scriptures - or some man-made theories of origins constructed by non-believers and/or liberal Christians (to escape the moral implications of the Scriptures)?
Theistic evolutionists: Theistic evolutionists do not accept the Scriptural view of miracles and associated Biblical critique of ‘laws of nature’ as discussed above, and, as such, they do not argue for their beliefs from a presuppositional perspective. They accept a uniformitarian old-age view of the earth and universe. Theistic evolutionists elevate “science” (both operational science and historical science - as interpreted from an old-earth worldview) over the authority of Scripture.
Theistic evolutionists don’t accept the following ORTHODOX beliefs as taught by Gen 1-11:
Creation in 6 days (in the order written in Gen 1, which does not comport with modern science)
Mature creation
Literal & historical Adam & Eve by special creation (Adam from the dust, woman from Adam's rib)
The ability of Adam & Eve to speak language fluently at creation
Introduction of (spiritual/physical) death to mankind as a punishment/consequence of Adam’s fall; this spiritual & physical death is propagated by natural birth
Young earth/cosmos (~6000-10,000 years old) created with the appearance of age
No macroevolution (evolution from one “kind” to another “kind”)
Long lifespans for man (up to ~969 years old – Methuselah) (pre-flood)
Worldwide flood (the flood waters covered the whole earth)
Death of all mankind & land animals, except Noah and his family & those in the ark, as God's judgment by the flood
All current animals descended (by kind) from those that were on Noah's ark via microevolution
The division of the earth after the flood
Tower of Babel account is true, along with the division of languages, and the spreading out of people
Theistic evolutionists do not all hold the same views. Many of these people are (inconsistently) orthodox believers in other ways (e.g., their views of Jesus). For a more detailed discussion of theistic evolutionists as well as a list of popular theistic evolutionists, see this page.
Intelligent design proponents: The Intelligent Design (ID) movement does NOT take a presuppositional approach to confronting uniformitarian and evolutionary thinking. Instead, they, as biochemists, argue convincingly (in my view) from “science” that nature (Creation) exhibits evidence of design, beyond Darwinian randomness. They argue that on the basis of "scientific laws” and statistics that even with an old universe-old earth (assumed as their starting point), the complexity and statistics show that it is virtually impossible for life to have formed and evolved without some “intelligence” (a Creator) having “seeded” the initial creation of life with the “information” (irreducible complexity - all the markings of design) that would eventually result in the evolution(?) of mankind.
Any mutations that occur during microevolution are almost exclusively detrimental, so any information (DNA) for the creation of species must have been built-in from the beginning (hence, their argument for a Creator). Many of their scientific arguments are interesting and informative, but they are NOT arguing from a presuppositional perspective.
Please note that because ID proponents typically start with an old universe-old earth as a given, they are NOT arguing that the Scriptures should take priority in how one should view science (especially historical science). They are arguing that naturalistic (atheistic) evolution has some severe, even fatal, flaws in its theories. Most of their arguments are against the “flaws” of evolutionary thinking (good), but you will not end up with a Scriptural view of creation from the ID proponents, as they have already accepted an old universe and old earth.
Key ID proponents include Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer. One of the key websites the ID movement maintains is the Discovery Institute. Here is a link to a recent article by William Dembski that explains more about the ‘science’ and philosophy of ID. The ID proponents have very helpful materials for critiquing the “flaws” of evolutionary theories from a scientific perspective, but, at the end of the day, you will need to decide whether or not you are going to accept the plain reading of Scripture as noted above, because the ID proponents do not bring Scripture as the controlling authority into their arguments.
The following is an extended quotation from William Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology” (Preface, pgs. 14-15). It is intended to give you the “flavor” of the ID approach to confronting naturalism:
“The Goal: Showing How Design Unseats Naturalism
The guiding question throughout this book is, If naturalism is false, how could we know it? The key to overturning naturalism is design, and not just the design of the universe taken as a whole but design within the universe, and especially within biology. Whereas the origin and early evolution of the universe remain speculative, the causal backdrop for life it well-defined. The nuts and bolts of life occur at the level of biochemistry. Biochemistry provides the causal backdrop against which design in biology must be decided. The aim of this book then is to show how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism. To do this I shall review some of my own research on detecting design. I shall show that detecting design within the universe follows a well-defined methodology. Moreover, when applied to the irreducibly complex biosystems of Michael Behe, this methodology convincingly demonstrates design.
The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of the much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question rather is how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out. They are on the way out no because they are false (although they are that) or because they have been tested by post-modernity (they haven’t) but because they are bankrupt. They have run out of steam. The lack the resources for making sense of an information age whose primary entity is information and whose only coherent account of information is design.”
Comment: I question how much ID can help people in doing theology. At best, they can argue that the “science” argues for a designer. But you will never end up with the personal God of the Bible using the ID approach. Use their materials with caution as needed to encourage you and build up your faith, but recognize that they are not starting using the Scriptures as their primary authority and there will therefore be some significant weaknesses in their approach.
For John Byl’s critique of various Intelligent Design authors, see this post (Reviewing Intelligent Design) and this post (Review: Giberson’s “Wonder of the Universe.” Note: this post is more oriented toward critiquing theistic evolution) and this post (Review: More than Myth, includes a chapter written by ID author Paul Brown) and this post (Evolution, Christianity, and Gravedigging) and this post (More Debate on Genesis, includes a review of an article by Dr. Bruce Gordon (“Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: A Biblical and Scientific Critique of Young-Earth Creationism”) of the Discovery Institute).
Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter V (Of Providence), Section 3 states “God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”
Note that the WCF seems to allow for a certain level of autonomy in God’s creation (He makes use of means), but allows God to be “free to work without, above, and against them”. While this allows for the contingent & free action of God, it indirectly provides a level of autonomy in ‘nature’ that is not Scripturally there.
Questions to be answered:
Are there mathematical “laws” of nature that God must follow?
What is a “miracle”?
What assumptions about God and His creation enabled the development of modern science?
Other questions ….
