The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 14

made with Proclaim

Doyle Walker

Sermon • Submitted 4 years ago • Presented 4 years ago • 26:47

0 ratings

· 49 views

Files

Notes

Transcript

The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture Is Metaphysical in Nature

We have now completed the presentation of the view that presents an account of functional origins and will begin to integrate this view into the broader issues of science and society. The following chapters will explore the implications of this view in relation to evolution and Intelligent Design, as well as a consideration of some of the issues of policy in public education. As a prologue to that discussion, this chapter will draw some distinctions at the metaphysical level that will seek to probe some of the philosophical questions and reality outside of the material realm.

Many people who feel caught in a perceived origins conflict between the Bible and science subconsciously think of the origins question as a pie.

PIE

Various aspects of origins are evaluated to decide whether God did it or a naturalistic process could be identified. The “origins pie” is then sliced up with each piece either going to “supernatural” or “natural” causation. The inevitable result as science progresses is that God’s portion gets smaller and smaller, and overall, God becomes no longer useful or necessary.

SLICED PIE

The inevitable result as science progresses is that God’s portion gets smaller and smaller, and overall, God becomes no longer useful or necessary.

Chapter one already discussed the issue that the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is not readily evident in the Old Testament and its world. One could go through passages such as or and see that the things attributed to God can also be explained in “natural” terms. The ancients were not inclined to distinguish between primary and secondary causation, and everything was attributed to deity. We can see, then, that the pie model is characterized by a distinction that is essentially unbiblical.

If we want to adopt a more biblical view, we have to switch desserts! We need to think in terms of a layer cake.

CAKE

In this view the realm of scientific investigation would be represented in the lower layer. This layer represents the whole realm of materialistic or naturalistic causation or processes. It is subject to scientific observation, investigation and explanation. Discovery in this layer does not subtract from God or his works. This is the layer in which science has chosen to operate and where it is most useful.

In contrast, the top layer represents the work of God. It covers the entire bottom layer because everything that science discovers is another step in understanding how God has worked or continues to work through the material world and its naturalistic processes. In this way, the bottom layer might be identified as the layer of secondary natural causation while the top layer is identified as ultimate divine causation.

Science, by current definition, cannot explore the top layer. By definition it concerns itself with only that which is physical and material. By restricting itself to those things that are demonstrable, and more importantly, those things that are falsifiable, science is removed from the realm of divine activity.

Take for example the soul. Speaking about what science can and cannot do Greg Koukl writes......

Science is incapable of proving that souls don't exist. It is hard to escape this reality given the current definition of science. That definition is based on a materialistic view of the world called naturalism. Science deals with physical things governed by physical laws. According to this definition, when the writer started talking about non-physical things he's talking about theology or philosophy, but he's not talking about science. Modern science deals only with the physical universe of cause and effect, governed by natural laws in a metaphysically closed system. By very definition, science cannot address itself directly to the question of whether non-physical things like souls exist or not. Such a question is outside its capabilities, as science is now currently defined. Some other method is necessary.

It's as if the scientist is attempting to say,

"We don't see invisible things; therefore invisible things aren't there."

But one can't see invisible things precisely because they're invisible. Of course you wouldn't be able to physically measure a non-physical thing.

Science has a tendency of assuming something doesn't exist because it can't measure it.

But this approach simply is circular and, therefore, false.

Philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen calls this the "Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy." To answer the question "Are there crackers in the pantry?" one need only go look. But not everything is proven in the same way. This is a physicalist response; it tests the existence of physical things. But a soul by definition is not a physical thing, therefore you can't "go look" for it in a physical kind of way.

Metaphysical arguments can't be disproved by science, even theoretically, precisely because they're meta-physical. They transcend the physical realm.

It's like trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick. Yardsticks don't give weight; they give length. If you said your chicken weighed 27 inches, you'd be speaking nonsense. It's called a category error. Yardsticks simply weren't made to do that sort of thing. That's my point. Science, strictly speaking, is not even capable of testing for souls, so how can it disprove the existence of souls? It can't. [2]

We have to learn to be careful about how we define and use some of our category terms.

Things like

natural and supernatural

We talk about natural laws, the natural world and natural sciences. Then we differentiate from that the supernatural. We say that that is what God is doing. Here is the problem. In the ancient world they wouldn’t have had those categories. In the ancient world everything was supernatural. They have no natural laws, the natural world and natural sciences. God was doing everything. Therefore, they did not divide things up the way that we do. We talk about

“miracles”

A miracle is our word for talking about something supernatural rather than natural. In the OT they wouldn’t talk about miracles. They would talk about

“signs & wonders”

God gave certain signs of his power, of his election, of his deliverance, of His love for his people. These are signs and wonders that God did. To demonstrate his plan and His love for His people. The divide between natural and supernatural would not be there. Things were certainly remarkable. But not natural vs supernatural. In our language we might talk about

“intervention”

Using this term assumes this model. That you can be outside the world in the supernatural. And then you can intervene in the natural world. It assumes these categories. In the ancient world they would not have thought of God as “intervening”. But they would think of God as

“acting”

Because in their view here was already there. Working and acting. I cannot intervene in this podcast. Because I am giving it. So in this sense they have a different way of thinking about the world.

Let’s go back to our cake analogy for a minute.

Though scientists have their beliefs, those must be seen as distinct from their scientific work. It is unconvincing for a scientist to claim that he or she finds no empirical evidence of God. Science as currently defined and practiced is ill-equipped to find evidence of God. The bottom layer may continue to have areas for which science cannot offer explanation, but that is only evidence of science’s limitations, not evidence of God. A believer’s faith holds that there is a top layer, even though science cannot explore it.

That top layer addresses ultimate causation, but it also addresses purpose, which in the end, is arguably more important. God is always the ultimate cause—that is our belief whatever secondary causes and processes can be identified through scientific investigation. But we also believe that God works with a purpose. Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by empirical science. Empirical science is not designed to be able to define or detect a purpose, though it may theoretically be able to deduce rationally that purpose is logically the best explanation. As the result of an empirical discipline, biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose, but likewise it cannot contend that there is no purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no God. It must remain neutral on that count since either contention requires moving to the top layer, which would mean leaving the realm of scientific inquiry. Science cannot offer access to God and can neither establish his existence beyond reasonable doubt nor falsify his existence. Therefore science can only deal with causation sequences—it cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that a purpose governs or does not govern that which they observe.

The term for the technical philosophical interest in purpose is

teleology

Teleology is the study of the goal of some intentional process that is usually the byproduct of purpose. That is, God works intentionally with his own purposes in mind to achieve a final goal. This concerns the realm of theology, or more broadly, metaphysics, and is not the stuff of empirical science.

The scientific observations and theories that compose the lower layer of the cake do not in and of themselves carry teleological conclusions (though they might be consistent with such conclusions). They cannot do so, because the presence of a purpose cannot be falsified. So some scientists might believe that the lower layer is all there is. For them the naturalistic causes are all that can be affirmed, and they do not believe in a purpose, for their layer, their worldview, their metaphysics, have no room for God. This view is exclusively materialistic and could be described as

dysteleological (no discernible purpose)

This is not a scientifically drawn conclusion, but one that is drawn from the limitations of science. It would be like a fish claiming that there was only water, no air (despite the fact that they could not breathe if the water were not oxygenated by the air).

In contrast, there are many scientists who believe that there is indeed a top layer—that there is a God involved in ultimate causes and carrying out his purposes through the naturalistic operations of the cosmos. This belief does not change their approach to their scientific study—it does not affect their perception of the bottom layer nor does it affect their methods for studying the bottom layer. But their metaphysical position would be described as teleological. Nothing is random or accidental. Many of the great minds in the history of science were in this category (e.g., Galileo, Newton).

I have proposed here that Genesis is not metaphysically neutral—it mandates an affirmation of teleology (purpose), even as it leaves open the descriptive mechanism for material origins. Affirming purpose in one’s belief about origins assures a proper role for God regardless of what descriptive mechanism one identifies for material origins. Since Genesis is thoroughly teleological, God’s purpose and activity are not only most important in that account, they are almost the only object of interest. Genesis is a top-layer account—it is not interested in communicating the mechanisms (though it is important that they were decreed by the word of God). Whatever empirical science has to say about secondary causation offers only a bottom-layer account and therefore can hardly contradict the Bible’s statements about ultimate causation. Whatever mechanisms can be demonstrated for the material phase, theological convictions insist that they comprise God’s purposeful activity. It is not a scientific view of mechanism (naturalism) that is contrary to biblical thinking, but exclusive materialism that denies biblical teaching. Naturalism is no threat—but materialism and its determined dysteleology is.

The functional orientation proposed for in this book is fully in line with a penetrating teleology. God’s purposes and intentions are most clearly seen in the way the cosmos runs rather than in its material structure or in the way that its material structures were formed (although the material structures can point to a designer). Instead of offering a statement of causes, is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.

The principle factor that differentiates a biblical view of origins from a modern scientific view of origins is that the biblical view is characterized by a pervasive teleology: God is the one responsible for creation in every respect. He has a purpose and a goal as he creates with intentionality. The mechanisms that he used to bring the cosmos into material existence are of little consequence as long as they are seen as the tools in his hands. Teleology is evident in and supported by the functional orientation.[1]

Natural

[1] Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (pp. 113–117). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

[2] https://www.str.org/articles/weighing-a-chicken-with-a-yardstick#.XiOhHBdKgUE

Related Media

Related Sermons