ANDREW B. TORRANCE
AND THOMAS H. MCCALL
Today, perhaps more than any time since the second and third centuries, the church is divided over the question of how we should understand the Christian doctrine of creation. In some instances, there is a profound neglect of the doctrine of creation; one need only to compare recent theological work on the doctrine of creation with many other traditional topics to see this. In other cases, however, Christians are sharply and deeply divided over issues related to the doctrine of creation. There are many contributing factors, but one of the foremost reasons is the divergence among the ways Christians attempt to juggle theological, biblical, and scientific perspectives on the nature of creation—particularly with respect to the relation between creation as a doctrine and evolution as science. As Denis Alexander points out, several major ways of thinking about creation and evolution have developed.1
(1) At one end of the “spectrum” are the young-earth creationists, who believe that the world was created in six twenty-four-hour days around 10,000 years ago. This group is committed to reading the Genesis creation narrative (and the genealogies) as providing an accurate historical record of the events that took place at the beginning of creation. Some young-earth creationists have been involved in the development of “creation science” (even building a “creation museum” and an accompanying marketing empire). Many young-earth creationists understand that their views stand against mainstream science; some simply reject this science by appealing to the authority of biblical teaching, while others insist that the scientific evidence is actually on their side.
(2) Old-earth creationists are happy to embrace the conclusions of contemporary science about the age of the earth. However, like young-earth creationists, they believe that the diversity of life in creation is the result of a series of special events of divine action. So, while creation may have occurred very long ago, and perhaps even over a long period of time, nonetheless God acts directly to bring about the diversity of life. In particular, they often insist upon the direct agency of God in the creation of humankind, and they insist upon the uniqueness of humans. Not surprisingly, they tend to insist upon the historicity of the first human couple (the “Adam and Eve” of Genesis).
(3) There are those within the Intelligent Design movement who are convinced of the reality of “irreducible complexity,” and they conclude that such complexity is most reasonably understood to be from the action of an intelligent designer. This group is distinguishable from young-earth creationists and from some old-earth creationists, yet they also deny a Darwinian account of evolution. They take a further step and call this intelligent designer “God,” and in doing so they engage in a kind of natural theology that associates the emergence of complex features of the natural world with special (intervenient) acts of divine design. For them, such association can be facilitated by scientific observation, even without the guidance of Scripture. Many such theorists also believe in a historical first human couple (although not usually on scientific or natural-theological grounds).
(4) Lastly, there are various types of theistic evolutionists who believe that God creates an evolving creation. These theorists take themselves to be directly in alignment with the prevailing scientific understanding of evolution. For some of this group, God is providentially involved in guiding the process of evolution (and various theological proposals are offered for making sense of this). For others, especially those who hold to noninterventionist accounts of divine action, God does not actively violate or suspend natural laws (as they have been interpreted by scientific investigation).2 According to the more extreme versions of this position, God creates the world with a particular set of natural laws and then leaves it to evolve for itself. Such a position is believed to account for the seemingly random mutations that lead to genetic variation. On other accounts, God might engage more directly with God’s evolving creation at various points. While some (perhaps many or even most) theistic evolutionists find it difficult if not impossible to maintain belief in a “historical Adam and Eve,” others see no contradiction and thus maintain commitment to this historic Christian belief.
When summarising these four broad positions, it is easy to caricature, and such caricaturing can easily turn a conversation into a quarrel. So it is worth acknowledging that there are more charitable ways of presenting the above positions—although, obviously, what counts as “more charitable” will vary depending on one’s commitments.3 It is also worth noting that when we survey the various ways in which Christians think about the creator-creation relationship, we find that there are many people who don’t fit neatly into one of these four categories but would align themselves with more than one of the above groups. Nonetheless, the above descriptions are representative of some dominant strands within the four groups.
Regardless of how we construe the various understandings of the creator-creation relationship, at least two things are clear. First, in the conversation about science and religion, the term “creation” (particularly “creationism”) has come to be associated with those positions that are most willing to sacrifice mainstream scientific consensus—be it for the sake of a particular reading of the Bible or a particular form of natural theology. This has meant that Christians who want to present themselves as being in line with contemporary science can sometimes feel a need to avoid using the term “creation,” particularly in the company of fellow scientists. Second, when Christians actually do discuss the doctrine of creation, the all-too-predictable debates about “creation vs. evolution” can quickly dominate the discussion. Such debates often suck all the intellectual oxygen from the room—with the result that other doctrinal matters of great importance (e.g., creatio ex nihilo, the contingency of creation, the goodness of creation, etc.) are often overlooked or ignored.
In this book, we seek to challenge the suspicion surrounding the term by presenting a broad picture of creation that finds harmony with both contemporary science and orthodox Christian theology. To paint such a picture, we have gathered together a group of leading experts from the fields of theology, biblical studies, philosophy, and the sciences to offer a diverse range of perspectives on what it means to know creation. We also work to reinvigorate consideration of the major and classical doctrinal themes.
That the doctrine of creation offers so much scope for bringing these various disciplines together is one of the things that makes it so special. Indeed, it is hard to think of another area of Christian theology that offers such potential. This is because it not only invites reflection on an intellectual concept; it calls for contemplation on the endlessly complex, dynamic, and fascinating world that human beings inhabit. Yet the opportunity for interdisciplinary engagement is rarely taken up, and Christian reflection on creation tends to find itself constrained by the boundaries of particular specialisms. The reason for this is that scholars tend to be under enormous pressure to stay within the boundaries of their field and avoid being distracted by the thinking of other disciplines—especially in the contemporary academy where there is so much emphasis on specialisation.
As history testifies, when theologians, philosophers, biblical scholars, and scientists silo themselves within their respective disciplines, they are likely to end up drawing conclusions that are not only distinct but also incompatible. When scholars do decide to venture outside their area of expertise, the potential for a wide-ranging discussion can often be undermined by scholars talking past one another. There is a tendency for scholars from one field to expect scholars from other fields simply to conform to their own orthodoxies, regardless of whether such orthodoxies run into tension with the orthodoxy of the other fields. If disagreement persists, it can be all too easy for interdisciplinary conversations to conclude with the various parties agreeing to disagree before returning to their independent silos—perhaps more reluctant than ever to participate in interdisciplinary conversations.
As we can see from the above list of views on the creator-creation relationship, this dynamic has proven to be particularly problematic when it comes to thinking about creation. Too often theological interpretations of creation end up being at odds with scientific interpretations. One way to try to resolve such tension is to accept Stephen Jay Gould’s view of nonoverlapping magisteria: scientific claims belong to one domain of enquiry, which concerns itself with the “hard facts” of reality, and theological claims belong to a very different domain, which is concerned about discerning a sense of value and meaning. The problem with this approach, however, is that Christian theology not only has things to say about value and meaning but also about the very nature of creation. So it is possible for theologians and scientists to draw conclusions that are not only different in kind but also directly incompatible with one another. This makes it vital for theologians and scientists to be in conversation, a conversation that benefits greatly from the input of philosophers and biblical scholars as well.
At the end of the day, there should be nothing about a Christian theology of creation that necessitates competition with the mainstream consensus of modern science. It is true that scientists can misinterpret the reality of the natural world; when they do, it is also true that their conclusions are not going to track with a true theology of creation. At the same time, such misinterpretation is so rare in the contemporary world that theologians should be hesitant to resist allowing their views to be challenged by the (scientific) conclusions of natural scientists.
That said, it is the case that persons can sometimes confuse empirical science with a kind of pseudoscience—a form of “science” that unwittingly draws conclusions that are not simply informed by empirical science but also by metaphysical assumptions about the nature of things. Thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss have overestimated the ability of “science” to challenge theological claims about the nature of the cosmos. As such, it can be important for Christian thinkers to be able to recognise the difference between science and pseudoscience, at one level, and between physics and metaphysics, at another level.
So, on the one hand, when it comes to knowing creation, it is going to be a problem for the scientist if a Christian theologian concludes that evolution isn’t true (e.g., perhaps because of an overly literal reading of the Genesis creation stories). On the other hand, it is likely to be a problem for the Christian theologian if a (pseudo)scientist claims that science can tell us that there is nothing beyond the natural order guiding or setting up the evolutionary process (e.g., because of an overconfidence in science’s ability to discern the lack of a teleology).
When such disagreement occurs, it is important for both the Christian theologian and the Christian scientist to be willing to listen to one another and be open to changing their minds—depending on the validity of the conclusions that are being drawn by the other. This interrelationship, however, need not only be critically evaluative; it can also be one of mutual upbuilding.
Christian theology can help the scientist to have a greater confidence in the order and regularity of the cosmos, which enables it to be intelligible for science. According to Christian theology, the order and regularity of creation is not simply assumed but affirmed. Additionally, Christian theology can help the scientist appreciate that there is such a thing as objective truth, logic, and reason. Further, it can allow her to recognize, when faith requires, that certain occurrences and arrangements are to be associated with special divine action.
The sciences can help give theology an accurate understanding of the history and mechanisms of the natural order, which can, in turn, help theologians develop a deeper understanding of the genres of Scripture—that is, to help them appreciate the more poetic nature of the Genesis stories. Science can help theologians to develop a better understanding of what it means to be human, which can make a difference to many areas relating to theological anthropology. And science can help us develop a better understanding of what it means for Christians to look after our ecosystem and the flora and fauna that share it with us.
For many reasons, it is critical that the plurality of Christian scholars talk to and listen to one another when it comes to knowing creation. By being open to learn from the voices of other disciplines, Christian scholars are not only capable of broadening each other’s horizons but also keeping one another accountable.
At a time when the doctrine of creation has been disparaged due to its supposed association with antiscientific dogma, and theological offerings sometimes risk appearing little more than reactionary exercises in naïve apologetics, ill-informed by science or distinctly wary of engagement with it, it is more important than ever to offer a cross-disciplinary resource that can voice a positive account of a Christian theology of creation and do so as a genuinely broad-ranging conversation about science and faith. Accordingly, this work aims to demonstrate that there is, assuredly, a more fruitful way to know the natural order as creation. This way forward requires mutual attentiveness to the conclusions of theologians, biblical scholars, philosophers, and contemporary scientists. By listening to one another, we can begin to develop a more balanced understanding of creation. And such understanding has an immense amount to offer the church, academy, and wider society, as that society grapples with debates about religious education, the funding and ethics of scientific research, the nature of religious commitment, and the relationship of private belief and public practices in a pluralist context.
To be clear, it is not a part of our endgame to encourage Christian scientists to start mentioning the created order in scientific journals. We are not hoping for the term “creation” to be introduced into science textbooks, nor do we expect Christian science teachers to always refer to the natural order as creation. The fact that Christians participate in a pluralist society means that it will often be best for Christians to opt for more neutral terms like “natural order” when we participate in the scientific world. This is especially true since the term “creation” has come to be associated with a whole host of theories that defy modern science.
So in the world of modern science Christians should follow the advice of Paul in Romans 13 and subject themselves to the leading authorities and their scholarly peers. As the success of the scientific world has proven, the leaders in the contemporary scientific world are not a terror to good science, but to bad. And, for reasons that are both understandable and justifiable, the leading figures in mainstream science have deemed it inappropriate to employ theological language. As we shall consider, there are not only good scientific reasons for this judgement but also good theological reasons.
At the same time, we also want to make it clear that the use of the term “creation” should not necessarily be a problem for the Christian scientist. Equipped with an accurate theology of creation, and living in a world where a Christian worldview is universally accepted, there should be nothing wrong with the term “creation” appearing in the world of science—because, as the Christian knows, that’s what the natural world is. While it may be appropriate for Christian scientists to avoid using theological language in the lab, this does not mean that such omission should encourage a forgetfulness of the createdness of creation in the name of science.
It is worth asserting that it is not part of our objective to encourage Christian theologians to ground their theology of creation in the natural sciences. While we think that contemporary science can complement and thereby help Christians with some of the second-order details in understanding creation, we also think it is beyond the scope of science to make judgements concerning more foundational theological claims, such as those about the nature of the Creator, God’s reasons for creation, God’s act of creation and God’s purposes for creation.
This volume gathers together a group of eminent scholars from theology, biblical studies, philosophy, and the natural sciences who are committed to furthering constructive dialogue between their respective disciplines. Together, they offer a challenge to some of the problematic ways in which we have come to know creation. But, more important, they also offer a constructive way forward for thinking about creation in a more holistic manner.
In the first part, we turn to the world of theology to ground our volume in an understanding of what the Christian faith teaches us about the doctrine of creation. For our interdisciplinary conversation to be Christian, it is important to begin by addressing what is distinctive about a Christian vision of creation. This is primarily a theological question—albeit one that needs to be informed by reading the Bible, to which we turn in the second part.
In the first chapter, Simon Oliver gets the volume underway with a careful consideration of how we should think about the interrelationship between nature and culture in light of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. He shows how an appreciation of the givenness of creation can help the human world develop a more conservational and respectful relationship with the rest of the natural world.
Chapter 2 sees Christoph Schwöbel thinking about what it might mean to know creation as a speech-act of the triune God. Turning to Luther’s lectures on Genesis, he offers an extended reflection on the metaphor of God speaking creation into existence. This leads him to consider the constructive ways in which this metaphor encourages us to think about creation as a web of communicative relationships.
In chapter 3, Randall Zachman presents John Calvin in a light that will be unfamiliar to many and surprising to some: as a theologian utterly devoted to the sciences—or to “natural philosophy” as it was called at the time. By exploring his theology of creation, Zachman makes the provocative case that, for Calvin, every Christian should seek to become a scientist, that is, someone who is constantly in pursuit of a deeper understanding of creation.
In the fourth and final chapter of the theology section, Andrew Torrance challenges two approaches that can serve as obstacles for the task of knowing creation: “methodological naturalism” and “methodological atheism.” After assessing why these approaches have come to be associated with the scientific method, he argues that the Christian should not feel a need to associate science with philosophies (naturalism or atheism) that are incompatible with a knowledge of creation as creation.
In part 2, we look to the Bible as the primary resource for informing a theological understanding of creation. As these chapters dig into the text, they also consider how we ought to approach Scripture in a way that does not put the Bible and science into competition with one another and considers how they might be able to serve and complement one another.
This part begins with two chapters that address our approach to the Genesis accounts of creation. In chapter 5, John Walton offers some guidance on reading Genesis as an ancient text in the context of our modern scientific world. He shows that when we interpret the early chapters of Genesis with an attentiveness to their original context, there is no reason to read them as competitive with contemporary science and, in particular, evolutionary theories of creation.
Going beyond the ancient context in which Genesis was written, Francis Watson takes us into the nineteenth century to consider why Genesis came to be read in competition with the natural sciences. According to Watson, the reading of Genesis that conflicts with the scientific world is not appropriate to the text itself but one that obscures the text by reading it through the lens of modern science.
In chapter 7, William Brown reflects on the nature of creation by drawing on what, on first hearing, would appear to be two very strange bedfellows: the book of Job and astrobiology. By turning to Job, Brown reminds us that, in the midst of creation, human beings are in a wilderness that is not the anthropocentric cosmos it is so often imagined to be.
In the final chapter of this section, Susan Eastman considers how the apostle Paul envisages the epistemic relationship between Creator and creature. For Paul, she demonstrates, God relates to us as whole persons who are embodied within the materiality of creation. This prompts her to turn to the worlds of neuroscience and psychology to see what these disciplines can tell us about the nature of human beings as essentially relational creatures.
In the third section, four leading philosophers give us their take on what it means to know creation. Marilyn McCord Adams opens with a lucid introduction to some of the key things to keep in mind when it comes to knowing creation. As she reflects on some of the distinctively Christian features of the doctrine of creation, she helps us to see why creation is not simply a material order but a place of life that is defined by a holiness and love that, in relationship with God, enables it to surpass the value of its mere material composition.
In chapter 10, Peter van Inwagen offers a theological meditation on a passage from Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love. In this meditation, van Inwagen draws on Julian’s words to illuminate the power, grandeur, and love of the triune God who creates.
In chapter 11, C. Stephen Evans asks whether human beings have been created with an innate ability to know that God exists. He argues that there are natural signs within creation pointing to God’s existence that we have been hardwired to recognise as pointing to God and that provide a foundation for reasonable belief in God. Further, he turns to some recent conclusions in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology to consider whether they provide further support for his position.
In the next two chapters, a philosopher and a scientist each respond to one of the most complex questions in the conversation about science and faith: How should we think about the nature of creation in conjunction with a modern scientific worldview? By drawing on the Aristotelian tradition, they both challenge the modern tendency to be overly reductive in our analysis of the natural order by continually reducing wholes to a coordination of fundamental material parts—parts that are microscopic.
In the first of these chapters, Robert Koons turns to Aristotle’s philosophy of nature as a key resource for helping us to think about the natural world from both a scientific and Christian perspective. More specifically, he considers the ways in which the quantum revolution of the last century has created exciting new opportunities for thinking about what Aristotle’s thought can contribute towards a Christian understanding of creation as well as a new philosophy of nature.
In the second chapter on the theme of knowing nature, we hear from one of our four scientists, William Simpson, who turns to Aristotelian hylomorphism as a way forward for understanding the place of living things within the material order. For Simpson, this philosophy provides a third way to think about the nature of life in the context of contemporary science, a way that is neither overly mechanistic and reductive nor dependent upon a theory of emergence.
Moving on from our discussion of nature broadly understood, molecular biologist Denis Alexander contemplates the relationship between creation, providence, and evolution. Alexander demonstrates convincingly that the scientific theory of evolution is in no way a threat to the Christian doctrines of creation and providence. Moreover, he shows that evolution testifies to the orderliness of the universe, as it has been established by God’s creative and providential activity.
In the penultimate chapter, physicist and scholar of science and religion Mark Harris offers a reflection on Isaiah 55:12, thinking about what it might mean to recognise the nonhuman features of creation as praising the Creator. According to Harris, there is a sanctity to nature that bespeaks an intimate relationship between God and the whole of creation and that invites a theology of nature according to which the natural order is defined by the praise to its Creator.
In the final chapter, physicist Tom McLeish argues that rather than talking about science and religion we should be thinking in terms of a theology of science. By so doing, he shows that we are much better positioned to develop a positive understanding of the interrelationship between the natural sciences and a Christian understanding of creation.
One thing to make clear is that each of the four parts is not siloed from the other parts. While we have gathered together representatives from each of the various disciplines, we did not require the contributors to approach the topic of knowing in a way that was confined by the practices of their particular disciplines. This is particularly the case when it comes to the scientists, who are not writing scientific papers but are reflecting on the doctrine of creation as persons whose primary expertise is in the field of science.
In putting together this volume, it is our hope that, by encouraging attentiveness to a wide range of voices, we can spark a more positive and constructive conversation about the natural order as a created order. If we are to overcome the controversies that so often surround this theme, it is vital to engage in such open conversation. By so doing, the doctrine of creation can perhaps once again be recognised as the cornerstone for a Christian conversation about faith and the natural sciences.
1. Denis Alexander, “Creation and Evolution,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, ed. J. B. Stump and Alan Padgett (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 236–37.
2. Some of those who hold this view would argue that God limits his activity to the quantum level, where quantum indeterminacy would allow God to act without breaking any natural laws.
3. For further discussion of these positions, see J. B. Stump, ed., Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017).