Apparently, the speaker was trying to imply that just because certain aspects of God’s creation give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, we can’t infer from this that they actually were. I don’t think he meant this to apply beyond the example he gave, but of course there is nothing to prevent us from applying it elsewhere.
The validity of inference
The teleological (or design) argument states that there are things in creation which appear to have been designed, and infers from this that at least some of them were in fact designed; and that there is, therefore, a Designer. This is consistent with the biblical claim that we can infer from creation that there is a Creator (Ps. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:18-20). Indeed, the very concept of general revelation is the idea that the elements of creation give evidence that they originate from the hand of God.
As noted earlier, the fact that we can infer that creation reliably displays itself to come from God’s hand presupposes that it reliably displays itself, the former being a sub-category of the latter. From this, we infer the existence and action of God. In a similar fashion, the fact that we can validly make the inference from the universe’s order to an Orderer, presupposes that the process of inference is valid, the former again being a sub-category of the latter. The inference that the universe is created and ordered can be done reflectively, but sometimes it is something we do automatically. That’s the way God made our minds. This automatic inference can be countered to some degree by conscious effort, and this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today: the spirit of the age tells us that since some order can arise from purely natural processes, all order must do so. Our minds still automatically infer that the universe was designed, but we consciously refuse to take the next step and infer that there must be a Designer. We also try to retrain our minds to not make the automatic inference that the universe is designed.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that any and every inference we make is correct, much less that it is appropriate to infer an ordering agent for every case of order we encounter. Crystals form into geometrical shapes, draining water spontaneously forms into a vortex, etc.{ii} These are all natural processes. Certainly, God can and often does accomplish his goals through the natural processes he set up (Exod. 14:21), but in these cases he is doing it indirectly not directly; naturally not supernaturally. So the mere fact of order does not tell us whether God brought it about directly and supernaturally rather than indirectly and naturally. We have to look further to see if the natural processes God set up are capable of bringing about the order in question.
The point being that while revelation, be it special or general, is perspicuous, this doesn’t mean that we can be superficial in our examinations of them. There are plenty of passages in Scripture which superficially seem to contradict others.{iii} This simply means that we have to look closer to determine what exactly is being said. This applies equally to general revelation: we have to look closer at the evidence to determine which possibility is a more probable or plausible explanation.
The scientific method
Most of the earliest modern scientists were devout Christians who were seeking to honor God by learning more about his creation. It is unlikely that anything like the scientific enterprise could ever arise independently of a worldview like the Bible’s, simply because there is no reason for nature to behave in an ordered manner unless something which exists independently of it is ordering it. Otherwise, there is just no basis to assume that the law of gravity won’t spontaneously reverse itself or cease to operate at any given moment. If it is said that the unchanging character of creation is “just the way nature is or the way nature behaves,” we can respond that this is precisely the point: if there’s no entity exerting power over the universe to order it, there’s no reason to think that “the way nature is or the way nature behaves” will be the way that nature continues to be or behave. The fact that it’s behaved that way in the past does not provide us with one iota of evidence to think that it will continue to act that way for another moment—unless the same thing that caused it to behave in an ordered manner in the past is still ordering it today, and will continue to do so into the future.
Hugh Ross has made an even stronger claim. He argues that the modern scientific method itself was originally derived from the Bible. The general pattern by which scientists systematically observe creation is (according to Ross) the same pattern by which Scripture describes it.
Christian scholars throughout church history, from the early church fathers, to Renaissance naturalists, to Reformation theologians, to present-day evangelical scientists, philosophers, and theologians, have all noted that wherever the Bible describes a sequence of physical events, it always prefaces that description with statements of the frame(s) of reference (points of view) and the initial conditions and closes it with statements of the final conditions and conclusions about the physical events.{iv}
Ross gives a rough summary of the scientific method as follows:
1. Identify the frame(s) of reference or point(s) of view.
2. Determine the initial conditions.
3. Perform an experiment and observe the phenomenon, noting what takes place, when, where, and in what order.
4. Note the final conditions.
5. Form a hypothesis about the how and the why of the phenomenon.
6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments or observations.
7. Revise the hypothesis accordingly.{v}
Science and Theology
Theology is the systematic study of Scripture (special revelation). Science is the systematic study of creation (general revelation).{vi} Both are prone to error because both are the efforts of limited, fallen human beings to comprehend God’s revelation. However, both are also valid pursuits which are likely to lead to truth because God intends for us to understand them.
Since both Scripture and creation are revelations from the same God, and since God is truth, it follows that they will never contradict each other. If something in Isaiah seems to conflict with something in Galatians, this means that we have misread one or both of them. Similarly, if science and theology appear to conflict, this simply means that we have misinterpreted either the facts of creation or the words of the Bible or both.
This is true regardless of whether the one doing the interpreting is a Christian or not. The Bible says that, while non-Christians may not be able to understand God’s revelation in an experiential sense (1 Cor. 2:8, 14), they are still held accountable for their response to it, and so can still understand it on an intellectual level (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:18-20). “The Holy Spirit does not give intelligibility to what is otherwise incomprehensible. Scripture is in general plain in and of itself. What the Spirit does is to grant understanding of the spiritual reality in and behind the historical material. This understanding involves both realization of what it is all about and also conviction of its truth.”{vii} When the individual is presented with the message of general revelation, he can either accept the message, or he can distort it by refusing to infer that creation has come from the hand of God.
Uniformitarianism?
It is often claimed that the scientific enterprise begins with the presupposition of “uniformitarianism”; that is, the belief that everything in nature has behaved uniformly since its creation, and that everything appeared slowly through uniform processes which are still going on today. The idea that God could act in the world through non-uniform processes, like miracles, is not allowed. If we start from the different presupposition that God has acted in a non-uniform way (since Scripture tells us he has) we arrive at radically different conclusions. Catastrophic events, such as Noah’s flood, occur which alter the “uniform progression” of creation. Therefore, we have no reason to infer an old universe.
I have a few responses to this: first, if “uniformitarianism” means that only slow, uniform processes are responsible for the state of the world, then scientists do not believe it. The claim of science is that the state of the world is the result of uniform processes combined with innumerable catastrophes—indeed, for the first billion years or so, the earth was constantly experiencing catastrophes, and it bears the marks of these events. However, these catastrophes didn’t alter the “fixed laws of heaven and earth” that God set up, and can be discovered by the systematic observation of creation.
On the other hand, if “uniformitarianism” means that science presupposes that the laws of creation are constant, then this is true; but this is a fact attested to in Scripture (Jer. 31:35-36; 33:20-26). As such, there is no reason to think that catastrophes (such as Noah’s flood) would alter God’s “fixed laws,” and strong reasons to think they would not. Moreover, as noted above, presupposing the constancy of the laws of nature itself presupposes an entity existing independently of nature which is sustaining it, so obviously this is not inconsistent with belief in God. Additionally, it’s simply taking God at his Word, when he says that the elements of creation reveal truth. So again, there’s no biblical, theological, or scientific reason to think that catastrophes would make the universe appear differently than it actually is.
Finally, the fact that God performs miracles at his discretion does not in any way allow us to posit that he has done so arbitrarily. In other words, we can’t assume that God has performed miracles beyond those he reveals to us. To do so would be ad hoc, and could be done to support just about any position.
Objections and responses
Objection: The Bible says that people have been so impacted by sin that they cannot help but distort the message of creation (Rom. 1:18-32).
Response: It also says that fallen human beings can’t understand the message of the Bible (1 Cor. 2:8, 14)—but this clearly means that they can’t understand it experientially, not that they can’t intellectually grasp what it says; they’re still liable for their response to it. There are plenty of Bible commentaries that provide excellent exegetical analyses which are written by authors who do not accept biblical inerrancy. They exegete what the text says brilliantly, but they qualify it by saying that they themselves don’t accept the message it conveys.
The doctrine of total (or pervasive) depravity means that no part of the human being is exempt from sin’s pollution. This includes the mind; there is a “noetic effect of sin.” However, it doesn’t follow from this that we can’t comprehend what God tells us, only that we won’t believe him. “This implies that natural theologians should be modest and open to criticism; it means that their efforts are not guaranteed success. It does not mean that their efforts are guaranteed to be failures.”{viii}
Objection: If nature behaves uniformly, there is no room left for miracles.
Response: This would only be true if the causal agent responsible for ordering the universe is unwilling or unable to perform miracles. Clearly, the Bible affirms that God acts both through the “fixed laws” he set up, as well as through direct action.
The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general. … The alternative is really much worse. Try to make Nature absolute and you find that her uniformity is not even probable. By claiming too much, you get nothing. You get the deadlock, as in Hume. Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers.{ix}
Objection: Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. The scientific “facts” of a hundred years ago are radically different than the “facts” of today. There’s no reason to think that today’s scientific “facts” won’t be completely refuted by those a hundred years hence.
Response: This is another misunderstanding. The scientific facts of a hundred years ago have been refined, not overturned. Newtonian mechanics was true a hundred years ago, it’s true today, and it will be true a hundred years from now (unless Christ returns). Einstein’s relativity equations did not overthrow Newtonian mechanics, it refined it to account for certain domains of measurement.
If Newtonian mechanics is true, and we have a great deal of evidence to think it is, it leads to affirming a universe billions of years old. If relativity is true, and we have a great deal of evidence to think it is, it leads to affirming a universe billions of years old. Scientific knowledge is not in a constant state of flux, but is constantly growing more precise in its discoveries.
On a more practical level, many scientific discoveries have direct relevance in fields such as medicine and technology. If we really think these scientific discoveries will eventually be refuted, it’s hypocritical for us to trust modern technologies, or to go to doctors, accept their diagnoses, and follow their treatments. Conversely, our trust in modern technology and medicine indicates that we really do believe that the scientific premises underlying them are reliable.
Notes:
{i} I address this in chapters 6, 7, and 10.
{ii} Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (1984).
{iii} See Gleason Archer (1982); Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (1997); John Haley (2003).
{iv} Hugh Ross (1998), 191.
{v} Ross (1998), 22.
{vi} These are obviously very crude definitions. Theology, for example, intersects many other disciplines, such as ethnology, history, sociology, etc.
{vii} Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1998).
{viii} C. Stephen Evans (1990), 67.
{ix} C. S. Lewis (1960), 110.