I agree that “we’re both trying to make inductions about what seems most likely.”

I also agree that with respect to the creation of the universe, God “had to start somewhere, so no matter what means he used to “develop” the world, the beginning had to be miraculous.”

Ironically, even the secular cosmologist are baffled by the singularity from which all of time space emerged. Our universe is truly a “cause” that was preceeded by no known effect. Obviously, as Christians, we know that God was behind it all, but such a claim is purely theological, not scientific. All science can do is keep searching for an explanation (one that will probably not ever be found).

Again, we are in agreement when you say the “problem is that science is inherently naturalistic, so even if we’re discussing the miraculous, it seems to me science would not have a means to acknowledge it. The most I’ve ever heard is that we don’t know everything, but someday we will. I have a hard time believing that science would ever be able to proclaim something truly miraculous.”

Science has no way to deal with the miraculous. It can only look at the data and scratch its head. Now there are many things in nature that have no known natural explanation (gravity is one of them). Any one of these could God miraculously interceding, or they could just be due to our lack of knowledge about the world He made. All science can do is keep looking for answers. But since Paul tells us that all of creation declares God’s handiwork, whether a natural explanation exists or not is of no consequence to us, because God is the author of all.

You actually know more about science than 90% of the Christians I talk to. When you say, “…I don’t think the issue is that God did a miracle disguised as something natural, but rather that science can’t acknowledge miracles, so it has to assume naturalistic causes.” you basically sum up the scientific enterprise very nicely. It is limited only to natural cause and effect - those things which can be observed and repeated. Anything supernatural or immaterial has to be handeled differently - with other ways of knowing like theology or philosophy.

I have quite a lengthy discussion about the appearance of age argument in my book, which I hope you will purchase, but you are correct in that there would be know way to tell “authentic” natural history from “apparent” natural history that was made to look authentic. If that were indeed the case, then only He who made the “apparent” look “authentic” could distinguish between the two. This raises many interesting questions about the credibility of the universe God made. It goes far beyond Adam having a navel. The level of deception that God would have built into the universe would actually be similar to creating Adam with very detailed childhood memories that never existed, and then telling him that we created as a young man. But that is another conversation for another day.

For more on the nature of science and the Bible, click the “videos” tab on the top of the page to see my series on this topic.

It was good talking to you,
-GJG

I hear what you’re saying, and I think we would both agree that there’s not overwhelming evidence either way DEMANDING that creation was naturalistic or miraculous. We’re both trying to make inductions about what seems most likely.

Concerning the purpose of miracles, yes, all the other miracles had the purpose of demonstrating something to people, so that purpose obviously wasn’t there for creation. I think we have to conclude that it was a special case of the miraculous, if indeed it was miraculous. I don’t think it would be special pleaiding, either. He had to start somewhere, so no matter what means he used to “develop” the world, the beginning had to be miraculous.

If I understand you correctly, it appears from the evidence that God used naturalistic means, so for us to posit special intervention means we should ask why he did so. My problem is that science is inherently naturalistic, so even if we’re discussing the miraculous, it seems to me science would not have a means to acknowledge it. The most I’ve ever heard is that we don’t know everything, but someday we will. I have a hard time believing that science would ever be able to proclaim something truly miraculous.

So I don’t think the issue is that God did a miracle disguised as something natural, but rather that science can’t acknowledge miracles, so it has to assume naturalistic causes.

I guess it’s similar to that old question about the appearance of age and why would God create things with that “appearance”. So according to my above reasoning, when God created Adam, of course he had the appearance of age because people don’t normally pop out of the womb as adults. My answer would be that God wasn’t specifically trying to mislead us, he simply had to start somewhere, and whatever starting point he chose would of course conform in many ways to the naturalistic process that would follow thereafter. Perhaps not completely, but I think in large part.

Behe has been sitting on my shelf unread for years, so I can’t comment about his work. Another question comes to mind about creation of man? How do you explain how humans arose naturalistically? Excuse my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with how even the ID people explain it.

Thanks, again, for the dialogue.

Now to your post. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth from nothing, and that He gloriously sustains their very existence moment by moment. In fact, if He were to withdraw Himself from His creation, it would cease to exist.

And so then the next question is, how does God govern His creation? By all appearances, God governs His creation according to his perfect patterns of providence. Scientists like to call them the “laws of nature” - but in an ultimate sense, they are how God interacts with all that He made and sustains.

I think so far you would agree. But since God is God, He obviously doesn’t have to do it this way. He has every right to initiate a sequence of events that would not have otherwise come to fruition “naturally”. You and I both agree on this as well. But when God steps outside of His own system and acts “miraculously”, why does He do it?

In the Bible we see many such miracles and I believe every single one of them is true. But what’s interesting about the Biblical miracles is that they always serve a very public purpose. And that purpose is to display God’s power to His people - so that they are reminded that He is their God and they are His people.

So what then of creation miracles? If God created the universe from nothing, sustains its very existence moment by moment, precisely set all of the constants of nature and finely tuned all physical phenomena to acheive a specific outcome, then what would be the purpose of a creation miracle? We can’t directly observe them? In fact, they all appear to subtly hidden, almost as it to appear naturally. Since we are both engineers, I’ll say this a different way: If God selected the constants, established the initial conditions of the system, wrote the laws that act on the initial conditions, and nothing can interefere with His perfect plan, why would anything creation require a miracle?

Of course, I’ll be the first to admit that none of this reasoning means that it wasn’t a miracle, but only that if God is omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then it didn’t have to be. But if those that science has yet to explain were all accomplished by miracles, why go through the effort to make them look so natural?

This is my problem with Behe’s line of reasoning. I don’t know how familiar you are with his work, but he believes in common descent. In other words, he accepts the geological, geographical, morphological, and genetic lines of evidence that all seem to be telling the same story. However, he wants to use miracles to explains those parts of the story that biologists still struggle with. I just don’t think that is necessary. If this is indeed the way God chose to create, then God must have gifted His creation with the ability to accomplish His will, rather than have to constantly reach down and make genetic adjustments.

So that is basically my take on Behe, and you are right that the analogy is not perfect. But it was an idea I had at the time.

I also want to thank you for having such a balanced view of origins, and for your willingness to listen to others who might not see things exactly the same way. I hope I have answered your question sufficiently.

Take care,
-GJG

I have a comment/question about your criticism of ID. It seems to me that the comparison you make with ID and meteorology, or any other natural phenomenon, is not quite fair because creation history is not a natural phenomenon in the same way. The fact that the Bible describes it as an act of God seems to me to put it in the realm of the miraculous, and wouldn’t that possibly rule out scientific explanation of natural phenomenon?

For example, in the parting of the Red Sea, there certainly may have been a process which could be identified through scientific examination, but not necessarily. Could not God have chosen to act above and beyond any natural means? Isn’t that what a miracle is? Or when Jesus multiplied the food to feed the crowd, he could have used some observable biological or chemical process, but couldn’t he just as easily have done an instantaneous miracle that we could never account for, regardless of how much we advance in science?

I understand everyone’s caution in not wanting to simply attribute everything the Bible says to a miracle, and to some it may appear a cop out, but it seems to me that special creation could have been as much an instance of the miraculous as anything.

For the record, I consider myself a young earth creationist, though I’m definitely not fanatical about it. I also appreciate the ID movement and what they’re trying to do, and I certainly respect scientists who are trying to make sense of their discipline as well as Scripture. If I get to heaven and find out I’m wrong, no big deal to me, I don’t think this is one of the more important issues I need to resolve.

But as an engineer turned pastor, I also like to try and make the most sense of what I see, which for now leans towards the young earth. I’m not very well read in the latest research, don’t have much time for that, but I do dabble, so thought I’d comment when I ran across your post. I’d be very interested to hear a response.

I need to play games more!

-GJG

To roll snake-eyes, you would need a “1″ (P:1/6) and a “1″ (P:1/6) for a 1/36 chance.

To roll a “7″, you either need a “3″ or a “4″ on your first die (P:1/3) but the then must have the complimentary value on the second die (P:1/6) for a 1/18 chance.

So you are actually twice as likely to roll a “7″ than you are to get “snake-eyes” - not that it changes my point, but I like to admit when I make a mistake.

-GJG