> Don't we all hold that there are two books that reveal God--the Book of
> Nature and the Word of God? Is not reading the Book of Nature (i.e., doing
> scientific work) in and of itself, and finding in it a revelation of God, a
> legitimate enterprise without necessarily reading the second book. Must
> every scientific endeavorer glorify the wooden cross? My hunch is that
> George Murphy's criticism of ID is that is in danger of glorifying the starry
> crosses rather than the wooden cross, and thus become idolatrous. While this
> is a danger, I do not see it as an actuality, do you? Doing no more than
> advocating Intelligent Design in nature is enough to be perceived as a hidden
> advocacy of the Christian view of nature.
My own view of the relationship of the "two books" (if we're going to use that
metaphor) is expressed pretty well by some comments of Nancey Murphy (referring to an
essay of Owen Gingerich):
"Gingerich uses the metaphor of the two books, the Book of Scripture and the
Book of Nature, both pointing to God. However, it seems clear to me, based on the
considerations I have raised here, that these books ought not to be read independently
of one another. In fact, the Book of Nature ought to be read as a sequel to the Bible.
As with the sequel to a novel, it is important to read the first volume to find out
about the characters. Or to drop the metaphor, we get our hypothesis of design from
revelation. Discoveries like the fine tuning come along later, and their strength as
evidence lies in confirming an already-existing hypothesis that already has other
confirmation from other realms of experience. Without revelation, we would be at a loss
to know what we mean by designer in such arguments."
(In _Science and Theology_, edited by Murray Rae _at al_, Eerdmans, 1994).
I.e., in order for what we learn from nature to tell us anything about God, we
have to place it in the context of revelation (or "special revelation" if you wish).
There is no legitimate natural theology which is independent of theology based upon
revelation.
This does NOT mean that scientific investigation _of the world_ must begin with
Christian presuppositions, intend to glorify the crucified, &c. Atheists can understand
the world qua world as well as Christians.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/