The Significance of the Creation Account: Without Creation, Nothing is Possible

It was my hope to post quick thoughts primarily about pastoral care and counseling but, here is something I wrote for school that people may find interesting.

Introduction 

In his paper, Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law, Vern Sheridan Poythress opens with the seemingly counterintuitive claim that “All scientists—including agnostics and atheists—believe in God. They have to in order to do their work.”1 The author goes on to admit that his notion runs contrary to modern science where the only time God is invoked at all seems to be when he is necessary only to account for gaps in modern scientific explanation.  As science progresses, the author asserts, the gaps are explained, and the need for God increasingly diminishes. 

In that opening lies the reason for this paper, which is that God can be seen in everything despite what science and our increasingly secular culture may believe. Since nothing escapes the dominion of universal scientific law, non-belief seems untenable. To boil the point down, the laws of science, using classical language, can be viewed as omnipotent. “The law is both transcendent and immanent. It transcends the creatures of the world by exercising power over them, conforming them to its dictates. It is immanent in that it touches and holds in its dominion even the smallest bits of this world.”2 This paper will examine the work of scholars who have researched the attributes of God in science and the rest of the observable world to add credibility to the biblical assertion that people have no excuse but to believe (Romans 1:20). The sections of the paper will include God in the observable universe, the supernatural attributes of God in the very laws scientists rely on to do their work, and the theological importance of the Doctrine of Creation as it applies to life and the rest of Scripture and Christian Theology as a whole. While culture seems to dictate that science is antagonistic to orthodox Christian belief and that modern science seems unable to sustain itself without the help of explicit theistic underpinnings, a case can be made that nothing, not even the science that rejects God is possible without God and the Creation account.

God in the Observable Universe 

In Romans 1:20 we read; “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 people are without excuse.” Not unlike the proud Greeks of Paul’s day however, many in our modern culture seem to have no problem finding excuses where none rightfully exist and, in a sense, worshiping idols. 

Even in objects as common as the human hand, the work of God is clearly evident to all who make the choice to objectively observe.  A peer reviewed scientific study called Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living concluded in part, “…our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions…” [3] Enough readers, however, raised enough concern about scientists invoking a creator in a scientific paper the entire work was retracted by editors who added an apology for scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. [4] 

While a direct connection to a creator is not always made, it does seem as though science often leads the intellectually honest to at least jettison the idea that nothing is responsible for everything that exists. For example.  In an interview published in Scientific American, Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer said. 

“Probably my belief in humility. I believe we should take a much humbler approach to knowledge, in the sense that if you look carefully at the way science works, you’ll see that yes, it is wonderful — magnificent! — but it has limits. And we have to understand and respect those limits. And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the things we don’t know. So that’s one answer to your question. And that has nothing to do with organized religion, obviously, but it does inform my position against atheism.” [5] 

God in the Laws of Science 

Ever since the modern scientific method was forged in the 16th and 17th centuries, religion and science have often been in conflict. Indeed, the archetypal case study of discord between science and faith involves the man who is sometimes called “the father of science,” Galileo Galilei. In our day, science and belief continue to butt heads. Certain conservative Christians see the theory of evolution as a dangerous lie and point to a literal interpretation of sacred texts as the only reliable means of discerning scientific truth. Conversely, some scientists echo Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg’s recent statement that “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization” [6] 

The thesis of the paper, Science, Intelligibility, Creation: How the Doctrine of Creation Unites, Delineates, and Ennobles Modern Science [7] is that God cannot be divorced from science or relegated to gaps in scientific explanation as modern culture might suggest but, instead, God must be seen as being “involved in those areas where science does best, namely areas involving regular and predictable events, areas involving repeating patterns and sometimes exact mathematical descriptions.” [8]  The author of that paper asserts that the work of science depends constantly on the fact that there are regularities in the. Modern science, in a sense, depends constantly on the fact that there are regularities in the world and that the regularities that scientists must rely on to do their work are the regularities of God’s own commitments and his actions.  In short, God’s creation accounts for the possibility of any empirical inquiry in the first place in its hypothetical and seemingly unending quest for knowledge, and its dignity and nobility. 

Scientists depend not only on regularities with which they are already familiar, such as the regular behavior of measuring apparatus, but also on the postulate that still more regularities are to be found.  And it is in these scientific regularities, known as scientific laws, where God can be seen. To understand the concept people must set aside the philosophical views of scientists and ponder what all scientists must expect, in practice, from scientific laws.  Or, as Vern Sheridan Poythress noted, “just as the relativist expects the plane to fly, the scientist expects the laws to hold.” [9]  And laws science relies on can only hold if they are universal in time and space.  Within the very concept of law lies the expectation that they always apply and in all places.  Using the universally understood concept of scientific law, the author explains that “the classic terms are omnipresence (all places) and eternity (all times).” [10]  Thus, scientific law, regardless of the faith of the scientist, has two attributes classically attributed to God. “Within a biblical world view, God is not only “above” time in the sense of not being subject to the limitations of finite creaturely experience of time, but he is “in” time in the sense of acting in time and interacting with his creatures. Similarly, law is “above” time in its universality, but “in” time through its applicability to each particular situation.”  

In our increasingly secular society, science is often thought of a discipline where God is not necessary but since the universe conforms to universal laws that exist outside of space and time, as God does. It is easy to hold the opinion that it not necessary to believe in God or that removing God from the equation might somehow make science more objective. But since nothing escapes the dominion of universal scientific law, non-belief seems untenable. To boil the point down, and if we are to use classical language, the law is omnipotent. “The law is both transcendent and immanent. It transcends the creatures of the world by exercising power over them, conforming them to its dictates. It is immanent in that it touches and holds in its dominion even the smallest bits of this world.” [11] Further, “the key concept of scientific law is beginning to look suspiciously like the biblical idea of God.” [12] Although some have tried to escape the spiritual discomfort that goes along with “knowing” that there is a God (Romans 1:20) by denying that laws that transcend the world are personal, they can only do so by constructing for themselves idols that are similar enough to God to be plausible but different enough to provide comfort to the secular mind. One cannot be certain if setting up idols stems from willful denial or not but is does imply presupposing that there is no God. Fact is, though, presupposition, bias, and cognitive dissonance seem to be evident within the scientific community as well as with those who have an interest in scientific disciplines. As previously noted, the peer-reviewed paper, Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living led scientists to a creator and the fallout from those who seem to set up idols was swift and forceful enough to warrant a retraction and apology regarding flawed methodology.

On its face, the subject may seem like it could easily evolve into a complex philosophical argument, the central idea that scientific laws are transcendent, personal, and have an author is as simple as the Gospel message itself and often only complicated by those who have a desire to lend credibility to the notion that science and God will be forever at odds.

In other words, what we all know but far too many of us refuse, whether consciously or not, to admit is that science itself should rightfully lead to worship. “We experience incomprehensibility in the fact that the increase of scientific understanding only leads to ever deeper questions, “How can this be?” and “Why this law rather than many other ways that the human mind can imagine?” [13] The profundity and mystery in scientific discoveries can only produce awe—yes, worship—if we have not blunted our perception with hubris (Isa 6:9–10).” And it is in this hubris, we often find excuses where, according to Scripture, none rightfully exist. “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 we are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Regarding the idea that science can lead to worship, noted scientist and director of The Human Genome Project believed that no thinking scientist could seriously entertain the possibility of such a deity as Yahweh, God of the Jewish people. A turning point in Collins’ spiritual journey occurred during medical school when he encountered patients whose faith provided them with reassurance and peace during terrible suffering. “This led him to question if belief could have a rational basis and to survey the world’s great religions. During his investigations, he was most influenced by C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, a collection of radio talks delivered by the legendary Oxford scholar on the BBC during World War II. Lewis argued that the human conscience provides genuine insight into reality, just as our senses or mathematics do. In his view, for example, the statement that the Nazis’ treatment of Jews and slavery in America were morally wrong more closely resembled a fact than a cultural sensibility. Lewis contended that holding up morality as an objective reality rather than merely a human construct requires positing a being that defines right and wrong.” [14] Even as a medical student who relied on science, Collins was persuaded by a moral argument for God’s existence and impressed by the rest of Lewis’ case for belief. And though he continued to have doubts as many Christians do, Collins decided the observable evidence was too compelling and took a leap of faith.  Although Collins believes theistic evolution is an explanation that reconciles faith and science, he is proof that what is observable by science and written on the hearts of men, as moral law is, gives us no rational reason to write God out of the story of how we came to be. 

Science, for all the good it does humanity, must humble itself at the feet of creation.  “To the wound of pride, the only ointment to be applied is humility. Standing before the threshold of creation, man stands likewise at the threshold of the divine. In the face of such radiance, the only proper posture is prostration. Science takes steps toward the infinite, and they are truly steps in the right direction, they truly have meaning, and they are truly necessary for man as a rational animal. And yet because he steps into the infinite, he attains to an imperfect knowledge of hope. In the final analysis, it is only through hope that the humbly lowered scientific eyes of man may be raised to the light that floods over the horizon of creation.” [15] 

The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation 

In the fifth century, St. Augustine wrote contemptuously of a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account: “The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions … and are criticized and rejected as unlearned men” [16] In the culture we live in, it is increasingly easy to consider the biblical account of Creation a myth, legend, or metaphorical literary account that was never intended to be taken as historically accurate. But there is a school of thought that argues that nothing in science or philosophy makes sense without “in the beginning, God…”  As Scott Hefelfinger noted, “Science can often seem to have no room for philosophy, no time for the immaterial, and no patience with God. Through all of these factors it seems we are left with no hope for reconciliation between science and philosophy, science and theology, and ultimately, science and ordinary life.” [17] In the same paper, Hefelfinger goes on to argue that, the Doctrine of Creation successfully bridges the divide between ancient and modern science best accounts for and makes sense of the situation found today between departments of science and departments of philosophy and theology: a historically diverging but essentially complementary relationship. 

Not only does the Doctrine of Creation bridge divides outside of Scripture itself, it is the foundational doctrine that the whole of Christianity is built upon, its significance cannot be understated.   “The Nicene Creed begins with the affirmation, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,” paralleling Genesis 1:1 by starting with the identification of God as Creator. Here, “Heaven and earth” is a phrase which encompasses all that is “not‐God.” Apart from what God has made, God is the only thing that exists. The Christian doctrine of creation centers on what it means to say that God has created.” [18] 

The question, “What does it mean to say that God has created?” has been an important one as long as people have existed.  “About 50 years ago Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called Genesis in Space and Time. And in it he asked a question we should all see as fundamental: What is the least, he asks, that we must make of Genesis 1–11 in order for the rest of the Bible to be coherent and true? Now he is not asking what is the most that you can draw from Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 1–3 in particular, but: What is the least that we must be certain about, clear about, for the rest of the Bible to be coherent and true? That is a very shrewd question, because it is a way of saying: Those are the things that we must most emphasize and that are least negotiable.”[19] 

But if one thinks about the elements of creation that are non-negotiable, it must not begin and end with the story of origins.  While knowing where we came from is foundational to formulating a worldview, the doctrine of creation is essential not only for understanding the beginning, but also the end, and everything that can be found in between. In the biblical narrative, we read about God’s plan of redemption through four parts: creation, fall, redemption and glorification. The story begins with “In the beginning, God…” and ends with glorification or, to put it another way, creation recreated. 

The culmination of God’s handiwork was Adam and Eve who were created uniquely in the image of God and made to be accountable to God: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). 

But, since God chose to create the first human beings with free will that included a capacity to do wrong, “she took of its fruit and ate . . . and he ate” (Genesis 3:6). In what was seemingly a simple act, Adam and Eve defied God’s authority and allwed sin to enter the world (Genesis 3:14-19). In that moment, Adam and Eve died spiritually and set in motion God’s plan to bring forth the one who would renew and restore that which had fallen to God’s original design and intent for creation (Genesis 3:15). 

As was the case with Adam and Eve, all of humanity is spiritually dead, lost in sin, and broken. Since the fall, no one has been fulfilling their God-ordained design, purpose or goal (Colossians 1:16; Revelation 4:11). All of this describes existence apart from Christ. However, . The seed or offspring promised (Genesis 3:15) is the one who comes “to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), “so that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). 

Through Christ, humanity is able to experience a whole new act of creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6), as amazing and miraculous as the initial act of creation (Genesis 1-2), and we are being renewed into the image of God’s Son (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 4:20-24), fulfilling God’s purpose for humanity (Genesis 2:15-17). In between the now of the new creation in Christ and the not-yet of experiencing the new heavens and new earth, we groan, including creation and humanity. As Paul writes: 

“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved” (Romans 8:19-24a). 

God promises the groaning will give way to something new, a place where and an experience in which sin and its effects will be done away. They will be no more. God’s design and purpose for His creation will be complete, and His redemptive plan will have reached fulfillment, with eternal and everlasting conscious and bodily (glorified) implications, including all of creation functioning as it was designed. Through Christ, God reconciled “to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20). John saw “a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away” (Revelation 21:1). He also records the one sitting on the throne pronouncing, “I am making all things new” (Revelation 21:5). 

While, “In the beginning, God…” explains how we got here, it is also representative a theme we can find throughout Scripture.  God’s original design and purpose, His telos, for all of creation (Genesis 1-2), will finally be realized (Revelation 21-22). God’s original creation is now recreated, God is not creating new things but instead, is involved in the process of renewing all things so that they may achieve their final intended purpose. In other words, God is “making all things new” (Revelation 21:5). 

Conclusion 

In the end, everyone, regardless of how they view science, philosophy, or religion will affirm the biblical truth that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and that “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Through God’s purposes of creation, we also must affirm “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1), and “all things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16). In the beginning, God’s work in creation culminated with the creation of Adam and Eve, who were created expressly in the image of God and created to be accountable to God.  And from that, everything known flows. 

Regardless of what we want to do with the knowledge we acquire over a lifetime of learning, in order for anything to make sense, we must go back to the beginning.  No concept in history, science, or theology makes any sense at all unless we go back to the time it was all being formed in the womb by our Creator. In the first three chapters of Genesis, God reveals things about himself, about the world He created, and about the people He created to occupy it.   For it is only in the Creation Account where we can discover God, discover ourselves, and discover our ultimate meaning and purpose.  As Paul Tripp once noted, “If God was here in the beginning, and if everything in the universe belongs to him, then what he says is true, and whatever disagrees with him is by its fundamental organic nature false. The doctrine of creation draws the line clearly in the sand – there is truth, there is falsehood, and there is no open catalog of equally valid ideas.” [20] 

To reiterate what was stated above, “Science takes steps toward the infinite, and they are truly steps in the right direction, they truly have meaning, and they are truly necessary for man as a rational animal. And yet because he steps into the infinite, he attains to an imperfect knowledge of hope. In the final analysis, it is only through hope that the humbly lowered scientific eyes of man may be raised to the light that floods over the horizon of creation.” 

In the biography of Hellen Keller, we learn that her teacher began to spell words on Helen’s hands, tracing the letters with her finger. In this, Helen learned to imitate the movements which spelled out the words, but failed to understand what the movements were. To Hellen, they were just meaningless movements until one day when her teacher spelled the word w-a-t-e-r into one of Helen’s hands as she held the other hand under a spout of running water.  And, all of the sudden, the mystery of language was revealed. [21] 

In man’s seemingly unquenchable quest to take step toward the infinite, we must never forget to humble ourselves before Creation.  For it is in the light of Creation that everything makes sense. 

 

 

Bibliography 

Billinngs, Lee. “Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says.” Scientific American, March 20, 2019 

D.A. Carson, Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Interview, A Theology of Creation in 12 Points,https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/a-theology-of-creation-in-12-points

Dean, Cornelia “Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science.” New York Times, Aug. 23, 2005

Elwell, Walter A. “Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.” Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub Group

Erickson, J. Millard. Christian Theology, 3^rd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2013

Gunton, C. (1997). The doctrine of creation. In C. Gunton (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambridge Companions to Religion, pp. 141-157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hefelfinger, Scott G. Logos, A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, Volume 14, Number 2, Spring 2011, pp. 131-148

Jaki, Stanley L “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987)

Liu M-J, Xiong C-H, Xiong L, Huang X-L (2016) Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146193

Marroquin J. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2007;20(2):198–199.

National Human Genome Research Institute. Director Francis Collins’ biography Available athttp://www.genome.gov/10001018; accessed February 6, 2020.

Patte, Daniel “Christianity and Culture.” Cambridge Dicionary of Christianity, October 2009

Phillips, B.B. (2011). Doctrine of Creation. In The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, G.T. Kurian (Ed.). doi:10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0434

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I. Translated and annotated by Taylor JH. New York: Paulist Press, 1982: chapter 19 (written c. ad 390)

Tinker, Melvin, Reasonable Belief? Providing some of the groundwork for an effective Christian apologetic, Church Society, https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/125/Cman_125_4_Tinker.pdf

Tipler, Frank J. “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Tripp, Paul, The Doctrine of Creation, Paul Tripp, July, 13, 2018, https://www.paultripp.com/articles/posts/the-doctrine-of-creation-article; accessed February 20, 2020

Vern Sheridan Poythress. “Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law.” The EvangelicalTheological Society 46/1 (March 2003): 111-123.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Vern Sheridan Poythress. “Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law.” The EvangelicalTheological Society 

[2] Ibid. 112 

[3] Liu M-J, Xiong C-H, Xiong L, Huang X-L (2016) Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 

[4] Ibib. 1 

[5] Billinngs, Lee. “Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says.” Scientific American 

[6] Johnson G. A free-for-all on science and religion. New York Times, November 21, 2006 

[7] Scott G. Hefelfinger, “Science, Intelligibility, Creation: How the Doctrine of Creation Unites, Delineates, and Ennobles Modern Science” p. 141 

[8] Johnson G. A free-for-all on science and religion. New York Times, November 21, 2006 

[9] Vern Sheridan Poythress. “Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law.” The EvangelicalTheological Society, p113 

[10] Ibid. p. 114 

[11] Vern Sheridan Poythress. “Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law.” The EvangelicalTheological Society 

[12] Ibid.  

[13] Vern Sheridan Poythress. “Why Scientists Must Believe In God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law.” The EvangelicalTheological Society 

[14] Marroquin J. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief   

[15] Ibid 

[16] St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I 

[17] Scott G. Hefelfinger, A journal of Catholic Thought, p. 131 

[18] B.B. Phillips (2011). Doctrine of Creation. In The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization 

[19] Interview with D.A. Carson,Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 

[20] Paul Tripp, The Doctrine of Creation, Paul Tripp, July, 13, 2018 

[21] Melvin Tinker, Reasonable Belief? Providing some of the groundwork for an effective Christian apologetic