Jon, thanks for asking in the diplomatic, well-thought out way that you have presented your message.
When you write,
"is the miracle of the Incarnation something which can be considered "science"...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?"
this reminds me of the difficulty of a theistic evolutionary or evolutionary creationistic view that upholds continuity. Are there no discontinuities, 'first instances,' as you call them, or interventions allowed in such a theological perspective?
At the same time, it seems that this thread shouldn't simply be for scientifically-minded theists or theistically-minded scientists to play a demarcation game ala Popper, Kuhn or Lakatos about what science is or is not either. Befitting our time in history, we could move beyond the old labels, as up-to-date discussion might promote it.
As with you, I look forward to the responsive/responsible dialogue
G. Arago
Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
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
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
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 15:54:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 10 2006 - 15:54:21 EDT