How creation testifies
Here are the logical steps by which creation reveals God:
1. Creation reliably testifies about itself.
2. Therefore, creation reliably testifies about itself when it shows itself to be created and ordered.
3. Therefore, we can validly infer from creation that there is a Creator and Orderer.
Point 1 must be true in order for point 2 to be true; or conversely, if point 1 were false, then point 2 would be false as well. Creation could not reliably testify about itself when it shows itself to be created if it didn’t reliably testify about itself. The former (point 2) is a sub-category of the latter (point 1). Similarly, point 2 must be true in order for point 3 to be true. If creation did not reliably show itself to be created and ordered, then our inference that there must be a Creator and Orderer would not be valid, since it would be based on unreliable premises.
Now, Scripture only explicitly states point 3. But point 3 presupposes point 2, and point 2 presupposes point 1. Therefore, the idea that the interaction of everything in the universe points to God presupposes that every individual element of creation can be trusted to display the truth about itself. This extends to every level of creation, and thus is true of recent scientific discoveries unknown in previous times. As mentioned earlier, the incredible degree of fine-tuning that the universe must have in order for life to be possible was unknown for most of human history; the space-time density, for example, must be fine-tuned to within one part in 10120 in order for any kind of physical life to exist. But the fact that this property wasn’t even discovered until the 20th century doesn’t mean that it doesn’t show itself to come from God’s hand and display his glory. In fact, the degree of complexity necessary for the occurrence of life is one of the most commonly cited evidences that the universe was made by an intelligent agent.
Romans 1:18-20
But who receives creation’s testimony? As noted in the previous chapter, the testimony of creation is sometimes referred to in concert with special revelation (Deut. 30:19, 31:19, 31:26-28; Ps. 19), but this is not always the case: those who have no access to any other revelation from God have still been given knowledge of God through his creation.
One of the primary texts for this issue is Rom. 1:18-20. This passage begins with the following statement: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…” Some understand this last phrase to essentially overturn the doctrine of general revelation. While creation testifies to God, this knowledge is suppressed; and so whatever witness creation displays is ignored.
But what exactly is being suppressed here? Go back to the three steps by which creation bears witness: 1, it reliably testifies about itself; 2, therefore it reliably testifies about itself when it reveals itself to be created and ordered; 3, we infer the existence and action of God from this order. Do those who deny God’s existence deny that the universe reliably presents itself to us (point 1), or that it is ordered (point 2)? Of course not. They deny that we can validly infer God’s existence from this order (point 3). In other words, the suppression that Rom. 1:18 speaks of is not a suppression of the facts of nature, it is a suppression of the inference from the facts of nature to the existence of a Creator: it is a suppression of the recognition that there must be a God. There is nothing in this passage, or any other passage in the Bible, to suggest that our observations of the universe can’t be trusted to reveal the truth about the universe. Nor is there anything to suggest that most of our inferences from these observations can’t be trusted. It’s only when the inference points to God that it becomes suppressed.
The passage continues in verses 19 and 20 by stating “…since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
This passage makes several claims:
4. The testimony of creation is available to all people at all periods of human history. This is evident from the statement that this testimony has been present “since the creation of the world.”{i} Therefore, this witness was available to people who lived in times prior to the Bible’s composition, and who had no special revelation from God; as such, it was and is available to those in post-biblical times who lived in places where they did not have access to special revelation, as well as those who live in such places today.{ii}
5. The testimony of creation is a reliable revelation of God; or, in other words, creation reveals the truth about God. This is evident from the statements that creation’s testimony reveals “what may be known about God,” and that it reveals “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature.”
6. The testimony of creation is clear and understandable. This is evident from the statements that it has “been clearly seen,” “understood,” and “is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.”
7. God holds people responsible for their response to the testimony of creation. This is evident from the statement that they “are without excuse.”
Thus, people who have never heard the gospel message and never read a Bible verse (point 4) still have some true knowledge of God through his creation (point 5) which communicates to them clearly and understandably (point 6), and they are held accountable for their response to it (point 7).
So, if people who have never received any special revelation from God are still given clear and true communication of who God is from creation and are held accountable for their response to this communication, what does it mean? It means that creation is an autonomous witness to God, and its testimony is valid independently of the Bible. It does not have to be interpreted through the lens of the Bible before it can be considered to be a valid and reliable revelation from God. The only alternative to this is simply unsound: if we deny this it could be claimed that, by not having access to special revelation, those who have not heard the gospel simply didn’t have access to the right filter or lens or interpretative framework from which they could accurately interpret creation’s testimony. But this contradicts the claim that creation’s testimony is understandable (point 6) to those who do not have special revelation (point 4). Moreover, even if we ignore this for the moment, we have to remember that God is just (Ps. 67:4). He would not hold people accountable for their response to something (point 7) that he never gave them access to. In order for creation to be a true and trustworthy revelation to those who don’t have any other revelation—as the Bible says it is—its validity must hold independently of the Bible.
Objectivity
But many young-earth proponents argue that in order for general revelation to be correctly interpreted, it must be understood through the lens of special revelation. Facts, they say, do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. Thus, it is perfectly valid to understand scientific discoveries within the context of one’s understanding of the Bible.
This is partially true: complete objectivity is impossible, and our understanding of the world often prevents us from seeing evidence that goes against this understanding. Our presuppositions are what we look at the world through, so we often forget to look at them, and we can even forget that we have them in the first place. This is why it’s important to examine our presuppositions and acknowledge them. We are fallible, and thus so are our understandings.
However, it just isn’t true that evidence does not speak for itself. People frequently change their mind, perspective, political affiliation, or worldview based on the evidence.{iii} Evidence doesn’t equally fit into any given understanding of the world. Most atheists acknowledge that some aspects of the universe display such a degree of order that they can seem to bespeak of an Intelligence that is responsible for them; but they deny that such an inference is valid. This accession would be pointless unless the evidence does speak for itself, and they feel it necessary to warn people not to accept its testimony.{iv}
So how could evidence speak for itself? It can make us instinctively infer something that does not fit in with our usual categories or worldview. This is simply the way God has created our minds to function. In the above example, our minds instinctively infer the existence and action of an ordering agent from the observation that nature is ordered, and those who don’t believe in God have to find some way to reject and suppress this inference. Of course, this doesn’t mean that any instinctive inference we make is thereby infallible. We should certainly examine them to see if they hold up under scrutiny. Sometimes the instinctive inference that God is directly behind something can be false.
Moreover, to say that evidence doesn’t speak for itself, like some young-earth advocates do, damages the role of apologetics. Why bother defending Christianity if the facts can just as easily fit into a non-Christian worldview? In making this claim they are severely undermining any attempt to argue that Christianity is uniquely true, and that it uniquely accounts for the evidence better than any other worldview.
Much of this will turn on what we mean by “objectivity.” This term is often understood to mean looking at evidence from a neutral position, something which is simply impossible. Moreover, we not only cannot achieve it, in many ways we should not. It would be inappropriate for a Christian to try to stop believing in God while examining evidence that may confirm or undermine her worldview.
So by “objectivity,” I do not mean that we should try to pretend that we do not have the presuppositions and beliefs that we have. Rather, I mean that we should examine ourselves as deeply as we can so that we know exactly what our presuppositions are, and then analyze them to make sure that they are true. We must do this always with the recognition that we want to believe them simply because they are our presuppositions, and so will not want to accept evidence that contradicts them. Our emotions will always play a role in our beliefs. This is true for the Christian and atheist alike, regardless of whether they are willing to acknowledge it.
Here’s an analogy: our eyes are the means by which we look at the world, so we can never look at our eyes themselves. We cannot evaluate our eyes the same way that we evaluate other things with our eyes. We have to evaluate them “from within,” as it were, by looking through them rather than by looking at them. But of course the fact that we can only evaluate them in this way doesn’t mean that we won’t notice if our eyesight starts to get worse.
As I say, complete objectivity is impossible. For that matter, so is complete goodness. But this does not absolve us of trying to be as good as we can: recognizing that we’re not perfectly good simply does not lead to the conclusion that we shouldn’t bother trying to be good at all. Similarly, acknowledging that we can’t be perfectly objective doesn’t excuse us from evaluating our biases with the potential of seeing them refuted. We should strive to be as objective as possible, by acknowledging our biases, and examining them to see if they are true. The reason for this is just basic humility: we are prone to error, and we can therefore be wrong.
This is a biblical concept. Jesus warns us to “consider carefully how you listen” (Luke 8:18), and one of his most frequent exhortations is “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rev. 2:7; 3:6, 13, 22).
One of Jesus’ deepest teachings concerned the manner in which we hear. This is so important that it cannot be emphasized enough. Specifically, Jesus alerted his hearers to the fact that they might not be using their ears simply for hearing but for other purposes as well—such as to filter and manage the message so it fits better their own lives and purposes. … Listening is an active process that may select or omit from, as well as reshape, the message intended by the speaker. Both listening and our other ways of perceiving turn out to be fundamental displays of our character, our freedom and our bondages. … If we do not want to be converted from our chosen and habitual ways, if we really want to run our own lives without any interference from God, our very perceptual mechanisms will filter out his voice or twist it to our own purposes.{v}
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that this denial that facts can speak for themselves is pure post-modernism. Post-modernism holds that there are no facts, only interpretations. The problems with this are daunting, so for now I’ll just point out that the claim “there are no facts, only interpretations” would be, according to this view, only an interpretation itself. Post-modernists are saying it’s a fact that there are no facts; it’s true that there are no truths. This is self-contradictory. “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”{vi}
The relationship between post-modernism and Christianity is very controversial, to say the least. Some think that it’s possible to have a post-modern Christianity, while others argue that it’s not.{vii} Obviously, those Christians who appeal to this to argue that general revelation must be interpreted through the lens of special revelation are not embracing post-modernism’s denial of truth. What they are doing is cherry-picking one aspect from post-modernism and using it to defend their rejection of creation’s testimony. I think this is unwise. Ideas have consequences, after all; and accepting one claim of post-modernism in one particular area leads to further claims in other areas that most Christians would not be comfortable with.
Who then can be saved?
While the witness of creation does not tell people how (or whether) they can be saved, it does tell them that there is a providential Creator to whom they are responsible. This is a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of general revelation: everyone who has ever lived, whether they have had access to the gospel or not, has some knowledge of God through creation, and they will be held accountable for their response to it.
Of course, this raises the issue of whether someone could respond positively to the witness of creation and thus be saved without having any access to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a scenario seems to conflict with the statement that Jesus is the only name by which we are saved (Acts 4:12), and would seriously abrogate the missionary enterprise to spread the gospel, i.e. the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Why should we tell people about Jesus if they don’t need to hear it in order to be saved?
But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be possible for someone who knows about God via general revelation to essentially throw herself at the mercy of the God of creation? Some theologians have suggested that such people would have Jesus’ sacrifice ascribed to them without their having any conscious knowledge of Jesus himself, in the same way that Old Testament Jews were saved.{viii} Of course, such a person could have no knowledge of being saved. The means of salvation is something revealed in special, not general, revelation. At best, such a person could know that there is a providential God, and that this God may have provided a way for them to escape from sin and condemnation (since he has provided for many of our needs). But they could never know this, or even be confident in it, much less that they have somehow acquired this means of salvation. Nevertheless, they would be truly saved, even though they’ve never heard of Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection.
I think this is incorrect. Scripture tells us that God has arranged human history, and that this includes people being positioned in particular times and places (Acts 17:26-27). It also tells us that God is omniscient, and that this extends to knowing what people would do under circumstances that are never actualized, or never come to pass (1 Sam. 23:10-13). With these two points, I take the position that God has arranged human history in such a way that if someone were to respond positively to general revelation (a big “if”), they are then providentially given special revelation via missionaries. Conversely, God arranges history so that those who have lived in times and places where no special revelation has been given are those who would not have responded to it, and did not respond to the general revelation they were given. I have found the writings of William Lane Craig particularly helpful on this issue.{ix}
Objections and responses
Objection: It’s possible for creation to reveal the truth about God while revealing falsehoods about itself.
Response: I don’t see how. Creation bears witness to having been created and ordered, and does so to those who have no other revelation from God to rely upon. Thus, we don’t get to determine beforehand how it testifies to him. In other words, we don’t get to put God in a box, only letting him reveal himself in ways we have pre-approved. In order to accept the idea that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about God, we have to presuppose that it can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself. The Bible doesn’t give us any limitations in how far we can trust the witness of creation. Moreover, creation also testifies that its Creator is righteous and faithful (Ps. 85:10-11; 97:4-6). But if only some things about creation can be trusted and some things can’t, then one of the things this would reveal about God is that he can’t always be trusted, which is difficult to reconcile with his righteousness and faithfulness.
Objection: Creation does not communicate propositional knowledge to us. Therefore, its revelatory capacity is limited.
Response: Sure. It can only communicate general ideas about God, and does so via inferences rather than propositions, although it may communicate these ideas through very specific information. This does not give us any grounds for rejecting creation’s testimony, however. Just as some propositions are divinely inspired, so are some inferences (bearing in mind that an instinctive inference is not necessarily divinely inspired). The fact that we can validly infer a Creator from creation presupposes that creation as a whole and every element therein is a valid witness to itself.
Additionally, the communication of ideas via language should not be considered infallible. As Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston wrote: “…our language is not in any case a simple photograph of bare facts. It expresses interpretation. Hence it cannot be used as a touchstone of truth. And philosophy cannot be simply uncritical of so-called ordinary language. Nor can it be critical without indulging in theory. Needless to say, this is not a discovery of the present writer. It is a matter of common recognition.”{x}
Objection: Scripture is more authoritative than science. Therefore, we should interpret science in light of Scripture.
Response: This is not an appropriate dichotomy. It’s not about science and the Bible; it’s about creation and the Bible on one level, and on another level about our interpretation of creation and our interpretation of the Bible. In other words, it’s about our interpretation of general revelation (i.e. science) and our interpretation of special revelation (i.e. theology, narrowly defined).
Now, no problem arises when we interpret creation through the lens of Scripture when it concerns areas which general revelation cannot address (such as God’s salvation plan). But when they speak on the same subject they are complementary. Scripture says that those without special revelation are still responsible to God for their response to general revelation (Rom. 1:18-20). Since general revelation doesn’t address how to be saved, they can’t know how to be saved; but they can still know that there is a Creator to whom they are responsible. The fact that creation can be trusted to bear witness to being ordered, independently of the Bible, presupposes that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself. After all, revelation is revelation; truth is truth. While one truth may be more important than another, it’s nonsensical to say that one truth is truer than another.
Objection: This chapter skirts the issue. Our presuppositions can never be examined or tested, because any alleged test or examination will presuppose them, and thus will end in a circular argument. It would only “prove” them by beginning with the assumption that they are true from the outset.
Response: It is true that some of our presuppositions are things that we can’t help but presuppose. Things like the laws of logic cannot be bracketed and proved on some other basis, since all possible thoughts can only have any validity whatsoever by assuming them. Such beliefs, therefore, are something like the bedrock level, the “last word” that we can’t get behind or around.{xi} But this only holds true for a very limited number of cases; it is not the case for the large majority of our presuppositions. Our political beliefs, for example, do not fit into this category: we can bracket them, and examine evidence for and against such beliefs. Such a bracketing would only be hypothetical or methodological; we would not really suspend our beliefs, but would simply be not letting ourselves base anything on them for the sake of their examination. This is precisely what Descartes did when he decided to see if there was anything we cannot help but believe. He even rejected mathematical truths by proposing that an evil genie could be systematically deceiving his mind whenever he tried to add two numbers together.{xii} But he didn’t really think this was a possibility, nor did he really disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 4 while engaged in this exercise.
Moreover, we can examine our presuppositions in a different manner than we examine beliefs we do not hold. Remember the analogy I gave with seeing: we can examine our eyes, not by looking at them (since they are the means by which we examine other things), but by looking through them. And if our eyesight starts to get worse, we would certainly be able to notice it.
Notes:
{i} Some claim that this means that there have been human beings around since the creation of the world. I address this in chapter 10.
{ii} Ignoring for the moment that God could have revealed himself to some people directly rather than via creation.
{iii} C. S. Lewis, for example, felt compelled by reason to accept the existence of God. He described this experience as that of “a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape” (C. S. Lewis [1956], 229).
{iv} For two examples, see Francis Crick (1988), 138; and Richard Dawkins (1987), 1. These are, however, scientists arguing that the degree of order in the biological realm should be understood in terms of evolution rather than a Creator. As I wrote in the Introduction, I am not addressing the truth or falsity of evolution here, and so I’m perfectly willing to grant that this order is better explained by evolution rather than direct creation.
{v} Dallas Willard (1999), 196-7.
{vi} Roger Scruton (1996), 6.
{vii} For a summary of positions on post-modernism’s relationship to Christianity, see Millard Erickson (1998b).
{viii} Millard Erickson (1996).
{ix} William Lane Craig (1989); (1993b); (1995a); (1995b); (2004a); (2004b).
{x} Frederick Copleston (1966), 506. This passage was also quoted in chapter 1.
{xi} Thomas Nagel (1997).
{xii} René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation I.