 |
Do Creationists Believe in Natural Law?
Supplemental Reading | |
John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Back To Genesis
No. 117b, September 1998
| |
Years ago, students were taught that the definition of science is "thesearch for truth." But things seldom stay the same. In recent years, somescientists have tried to equate science with naturalism—"the search for anaturalistic explanation for all things."
We've all heard the modern-day mantra, "evolution is science but creation isreligion." If this is true, then certainly creation does not belong in ascience classroom. Since creation necessarily implies supernaturalinvolvement, then it falls outside the realm of naturalistic science.
When I was on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, I forged a friendlyrelationship with one of my colleagues, a paleontologist and well-publishedadvocate for evolution. Even though he claimed to hold a fairly orthodoxbelief in God, he insisted that science and religion were two completelydifferent enterprises. "Even if the actual truth is that God created in sixliteral days just a few thousand years ago," he said to me one day, "even ifthe Biblical account is absolutely accurate, true history, the job ofscience is to come up with a believable account that includes nosupernatural." Science cannot allow the possibility of supernatural inputinto the natural arena.
His tirade, of course, completely distorts creation thinking. Creationistsinsist that both the physical universe and living things within the universefunction according to natural law. We do not wave the magic wand ofsupernaturalism every time we can't explain something. Natural law wasinstituted by the Creator as the way to maintain His incredibly complexcreation. While the Creator has reserved the right to intervenesupernaturally in this creation from time to time (especially the miraclesmentioned in Scripture), these are exceptions to the rule of natural law.Creationists and evolutionists are 100% in agreement concerning the role ofnatural law in the universe's operation.
Where we differ is in its origin. The universe exists and science canobserve its operation. But how did it get here? Neither creation norevolution seem to be occurring today. Natural laws are conservative andoperational, not creative and innovational. These one-time, non-observed,non-repeatable innovative events of the past must have been accomplished byGod's creative power in ways quite different from the sustaining laws we canobserve today.
The uniformitarian extrapolation of present processes to explain creationevents leads naturalists to hopeless reliance on spontaneous generation oflife from non-life, of beneficial mutations, etc., even matter fromnon-matter. Creationists admit they cannot explain the nature of God'screative laws, but we don't mis-state and mis-use the operational laws tomake them creative. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framedby the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of thingswhich do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).
Scientists display their religion of naturalism when they illegitimatelyequate science with naturalism. Creation may not be any more observable thanevolution, but it is more scientific. |
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
September 1998
Copyright © 1998 All Rights Reserved |
 |
