Re: asa-digest V1 #1311
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:23:47 -0400
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
.................................
> 2. Employing the term 'supernatural' also suggests that the world of
> ordinary experience (commonly called the 'natural' world) is properly
> called by the name, 'Nature.' I highly prefer to use the term 'The
> Creation' as the proper name of that world. I have also suggested that, for
> a Christian, the term 'creaturely science' is more appropriate than
> 'natural science.' In both cases, the terms 'Creation' and 'creaturely'
> serve as reminders of the ultimate identity of the universe. It is that
> which has being--all that it is and all that it is capable of doing--solely
> as a gift from the Creator.
>
> I think it important for Christians to use terminology that proceeds from
> the fundamentals of historic Christian theology. The world of which we are
> a part is not "Nature" but it is "The Creation." What the sciences have
> empirical access to, and what the sciences are competent to theorize about,
> is the behavior of 'creatures'--members of the Creation.
I agree with the substance of your statement but not the terminology.
"Creation" is a theological term, not a scientific one. Of course we use the word
all the time for artists, cooks, etc., but here theological confusion is not likely to
result. In dealing with potentially neuralgic situations we ought to insist as much as
possible that only God can be the subject of the verb "create" - like Hebrew br'.
There would be no problem with using it as you suggest if the conversation were
only among Christians, but in wider discussions - with people of other faiths, atheists,
&c. - the use of the term "creation" leads to confusion & unwarranted conclusions. In
popular usage, to say that science studies "creation" (almost always understood in the
restricted sense of origination) means that science _qua_ science is able to understand
everything there is to know about the origin of the universe and life without reference
to God. We see this, e.g., in the title of Gamow's _The Creation of the Universe_ or
popular accounts which speak of "the big bang in which the universe was created," not
to mention Hawking's "What place then for a creator?"
Now no Christian, I think, will argue more strongly that I that the world seen
as nature can be understood "though God were not given." That should be insisted upon
against all the interventionists, "Christian science" proponents &c. Speaking of
"natural science" emphasizes this. On the other hand, the world can be known as the
creation of the true God only by revelation, not scientific investigation: That has to
be insisted upon against all the proponents of natural theology, ID, &c.
In the best of all possible worlds this might be regarded as an arbitrary &
unnecessary distinction. But in the world we inhabit I think it's a distinction which
needs to be maintained for the sake of theological clarity.
Some confusion also arises from the fact that "creation" can refer to what is
created as well as the process of creation. To say that "science studies creation" in
the sense that it studies what God has made is less open to confusion than to say that
it studies the processes of creation. & even the latter, as I indicated, can be
understood correctly, but it seems to be more often misunderstood.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/