TITLE: Philosophical Creationism
SEND A PRIVATE COMMENT
SEND ARTICLE TO A FRIEND
Historically this may not be true. Historically the term 'science' might (might) have been big enough to mesh appropriately with the word 'creationism'; but this is certainly no longer the case using today's terminology.
Today, the word 'science' implies either metaphysical or methodological naturalism. Naturalism implies a deliberate limiting of the inquiry to 'natural' causes...
I see I am losing much of my audience. Let me try an example:
Suppose your car was parked under a tree. Further suppose that when you went to leave work you found the tree was now ON TOP of your car. So you call a policeman. And this policeman is committed to 'methodological naturalism'. In his way of investigating, only 'natural' (in this case meaning 'not human, not deliberate') actors are considered.
So he comes to see your car. And (surprise, surprise) he determines that 'the tree fell due to natural causes.' In vain do you point out saw marks, fruitlessly you show him footprints in the dirt around the stump. None of this makes any difference. His method requires that only natural causes be found for your fallen tree.
I propose the term 'philosophical creationism'. For a definition, perhaps: 'The approach to all truth inquiries that acknowledges that all of nature has been deliberately created by God. It further acknowledges that all events fall into one of two categories: a) Events happening by the will of God via direct fiat; without any mediating or secondary causes, b) Events happening by the will of God via mediating or secondary causes.
So we start all of our work with all of the appropriate assumptions in hand. We come to the tree prepared to see either evidence that the tree fell by itself or that some criminal knocked it down on top of the car.
There is a famous atheist approach to potential miracles. 'Which', they ask, 'is more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that the witness lied?' Translated into our terms this question becomes, 'Is this an event in which God acted without secondary causes, or yet another example of a sinful human being lying?"
For the atheist, who disallows a priori any violation of the laws of nature, the question is self-answering. Since there are no violation of the laws of nature, and since we do know that humans do lie (or hallucinate, or are deceived, etc.) why then, he lied (or hallucinated, etc.). For the Christian, on the other hand, the question must be approached from two directions. The likelihood of God's acting directly is answered by theology… the study of God and his actions. Is this action consistent with the types of actions that God has done in the past? Is it consistent with what He said he would do?
From the other direction we examine the likelihood of the individual(s) lying. Are they known liars? Do they have something to gain from their story? Do the physical and social facts correspond with their story?
I can see why people, even Christians, are so eager to use the word 'scientific': Our society uses the term almost as a synonym for the word 'truth'. Courts have decided (ex nihlo) that only 'good science' can be taught in schools.
But unfortunately 'science' is a minnow that cannot possibly swallow the whale that is 'creationism'.
Scripture begins, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' From this sentence we have the beginning of our metaphysic: the universe exists and God created it. We begin our epistemology: God created us, and told us about it… He created the world so we can learn about it from Him. Our morality has its foundation: God is our creator.
So linking the word 'scientific' with the word 'creationism' is like attempting to tow a semi with a VW beetle.
The opinions expressed by authors may not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.