[asa] Creation and Incarnation

I have just finished reading the first third of "Three Views on Creation and
Evolution", edited by J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. The first third
contains the young earth creation view, including their view that
methodological naturalism is a faulty viewpoint because it limits science to
not consider all causes, which could be supernatural in origin. Instead,
they argue for what they call an "open philosophy of science" which they say
means that when science looks at a phenomenon to find out its cause, it
should be allowed to consider a wide variety of causes, natural and
supernatural.
 
The argument is in some ways a valid one, and yet IMHO full of holes. In
considering this position, a thought began brewing which I wish to propose
here for discussion. For many believers in Christ and the Bible, I believe
the Incarnation of Christ may serve as a useful paradigm around which to
frame questions concerning Creation. Perhaps in our agreement on the
Incarnation, we might also come to closer unity on Creation questions (or
the acceptance of alternative viewpoints within Christian belief), although
this is likely too much to hope. As background, I believe the Incarnation
of Christ was initiated miraculously through the Holy Ghost, not through
natural procreation, as Luke records. I believe this is a reasonable
assumption made by most (though not necessarily all) believers in Christ.
 
I would start by asking the question, "How long was the time from the
conception to the birth of Christ?" While the Bible doesn't tell us
specifically, a reasonable answer is probably "about nine months." Why nine
months? Because that is the time it takes for a baby to develop from fetus
to full term. If this is a reasonable assumption, it means that the birth
of Christ, though miraculous in origin, continued through normal human
development; i.e. natural processes. If a modern pediatrician had been
Mary's doctor during the pregnancy, he would have seen a normal development
and birth of a baby, which he could have explained using his knowledge of
biology. The only part he couldn't explain naturally would be Mary's claim
of the origin of her pregnancy.
 
Thus, the conception of Christ presents a singularity, a gap in the ordinary
scientific understanding of human reproduction. The YECist (and OECist too)
would probably claim that this shows the necessity of allowing for the
supernatural in otherwise scientific exploration. Otherwise, science would
never be able to explain the "first cause" of how Mary could have become
pregnant, "seeing I know not a man." I believe this is a point which
deserves further consideration.
 
In answer to the YEC, I would ask why didn't God create ex nihlio a fully
functioning man, Jesus, at 30 years of age, prepared to begin his ministry?
He might have been created with strong muscles, possibly bodily scars, and
an already existing set of memories and human relationships, indicating an
"apparent history" of working as a carpenter in Nazareth (though he never
really did). Or why couldn't God have created a full-term baby in Mary's
womb (ignoring her potential discomfort at being immediately pregnant with a
10-pound baby), complete with a false history of having developed naturally
in the womb? I would grant the possibility that God could, but the clear
meaning of scripture as well as church tradition would preclude these
possibilities. The scripture simply says that Mary was found to be with
child, without requiring any "appearance of false history" in the
development of the child.
 
Thus in the Incarnation, God acted subtlely, causing a single discontinuity
in the normal, natural order of things, but then allowing nature to carry
out its normal processes toward the birth of the child. To me, if this can
serve as any sort of useful illustration of the Creation, this points toward
an OEC or TE view of things. According to the OECist, God acted
miraculously at various points in Creation to set things in motion (Big
Bang, first life, etc.), and then allowed time and natural processes to
develop according to a natural order over millions of years.
 
How would a Theistic Evolutionist respond to the Incarnation in this
context? Would they allow for a non-scientific (non-naturalistic)
discontinuity as the "first cause" for an otherwise natural human
development? I mean in the sense of a scientific phenomenon, rather than a
religious ideology. If so, then why could there not be similar
discontinuities in the Creation, as with the OEC view? I am writing this
with the understanding that the Theistic Evolutionary view of creation is
that God did not act outside of normal, methodologically natural processes
(i.e. they reject the periodic supernatural interventions claimed by
OECists). Or would the TE say the birth of Christ (miraculous in its first
instant, but fully natural thereafter) illustrates how God created a "fully
gifted creation" in the first instance, which has ever since been operating
according to marvelous but natural processes?
 
The question is, is the miracle of the Incarnation something which can be
considered "science", as Nelson and Reynolds might argue, to explain a
scientific "first cause" of the man Jesus? It is a complex question. On
the one hand, as Christians we must allow for the possibility of God acting
miraculously within nature. But on the other hand, what can science
possibly say about it? Can science answer the question of "how" the
Incarnation took place? One might propose various scientific theories, such
as:
 - God created a sperm ex nihlio which wiggled its way into an egg to
fertilize it
 - God created a fertilized egg ex nihlio which then implanted and began
growing naturally
 - God created and implanted a fully formed fetus of some age, whether
hours, days, or weeks old and let it continue growing.
 - God took one of Mary's egg cells and miraculously implanted DNA to make
it fertile, so it could then implant and grow naturally
 
These might all be valid scientific theories, if we were to consider the
conception of Christ to be within the realm of science, but they are wholly
unprofitable and irrelevant. God has not chosen to reveal the answer to us,
and it is beyond any reasonable method of scientific investigation. Is it
therefore a question of science for which no answer will ever be discovered?
If so, what is the benefit of calling it science? To me, this invalidates
the insistence of YECists that supernatural occurrences must be considered
science -- there is no way that science can study them.
 
Or, is it outside of science because it was supernatural, though its effects
could have been be observed scientifically in the growth of a fetus? In
which case, how can methodological naturalism explain the real, physical
existence of this unique child? To me, this calls into question the view
that methodological naturalism is the only way to explain scientific
observations, because this does not very easily account for supernatural
causes.
 
In summary, I don't know that this analogy from the Incarnation solves
anything, but it does raise some important questions of what is science and
how does miracle interact with nature. Each Creation paradigm will have its
own response to the Incarnation.
 
- The YECist might declare that the Incarnation is a good example of why
supernatural causes must be considered by science. This real human life
began with a miraculous conception, therefore we must allow for supernatural
causes of otherwise scientifically observable phenomena. They might point
out that Jesus' DNA would, presumably, have contained something from Mary's
DNA and something from another source, which would have the appearance of
genetic history, though he had been miraculously created; just as in the
Creation, things were created fully formed, with apparent history appearing
where necessary to make a functioning universe.
- The OECist might reply that the Incarnation shows how God acts in nature.
He acts at certain "first instances", and then lets time and nature take
over. He didn't create a 30-year-old man, Jesus; just as in the creation,
he didn't create a fully ordered universe with a false history, but rather
let it develop naturally over billions of years.
- The TEist might say the Incarnation shows how God works, creating a fully
gifted human embryo in the beginning, which then developed naturally without
the need for further divine intervention; just as God created a well-ordered
universe, which had the capability of developing galaxies, elements, first
life, species, plate tectonics, atmosphere, etc. to sustain our present
existence.
 
Hoping this will stimulate some interesting dialog,
 
Jon Tandy
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 10 15:01:51 2006