Nature is the art of God

In this post I want to take another look at the idea of nature.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'The evolution wars often revolve around the word “nature.” Evolutionists insist that science must use natural instead of supernatural explanations. It seems obvious that before arguing such issues, one must first define nature. That is not easily done, wrote a scientist at the University of Bergen in a letter to Nature.' [1.]

2. "Your editorial notes that many people define ‘nature’ as a place without people, and that this would suggest that nature is best protected by keeping humans far away. You question the value of this negative definition, arguing that “if nature is defined as a landscape uninfluenced by humankind, then there is no nature on the planet at all”.
This may be true. However, if we define nature as including humankind, the concept becomes so all-encompassing as to be practically useless.' [2.]

- That materialists can't define 'nature' is evidence that not only their ideas about nature are wrong, but that materialism (as a worldview) itself is a fallacious notion.

- After all, this is not a small matter. If you can't define nature, what can you define? If your ideas about nature (about the environment we live in) are wrong, how can anything you believe be correct.

- The materialist cannot define nature in a meaningful, coherent way. Only the creationist can offer a definition (view) of the world that makes sense. What this woman calls nature is a creation of God. (A God that is outside the physical universe) The world was created for man to live in; as a home for man. Man is in the world, but not of it, if you will. We have to think of the world as we would think of a house, as a place to live in. (Such an idea can be abused; but all ideas can be abused.) Man is separate from nature, in the sense 'nature' didn't create man, and in the sense he's not an animal; not on the same 'level' as birds, rabbits, fish, etc. [3.]

- Many people claim to find this a horrid idea; but I don't see why. The abuses of 'nature' that we see are not the result of this idea; there isn't anything inherent in the idea that leads to abuse. I would suggest the opposite is the case. I think it's just a cop out to blame all environmental abuse on the idea of the earth as a created home for man. There's no way a direct connection can be made from creation theology to environmental abuse. In any event, this isn't just an idea; but according to biblical theology this is a reality; and just pretending it isn't true won't change the reality of our situation. (If man is just a part of natural, a creature as natural as any other, the idea of abusing nature makes no sense.)

- Materialists like to claim there's no difference between mankind and the animals, but do any of them imagine animals are wondering how to define nature? Do any of them see a problem?

- Man and rabbit are both the products of god's creation; but this doesn't mean they are on the same ontological level. Man is made in the image of god, and the rabbit (despite what some liberal theologians claim) is not. There is an hierarchy in creation. The materialist can't give us a basis for hierarchy, which is why he runs his ship aground on the subject of definition. Definition depends upon hierarchy; no hierarchy, no definition. Materialism is a monistic worldview; and monistic wviews can't provide a basis for definition. (The definitions employed by devotees are not consistent with the monism of the system involved.)

- Wickson wants answers for her question, but going to Nature magazine is poor place to look. Materialism (being monistic) can't provide a rational definition of nature. (Or of anything if it comes to that. i.e. if all is one, if there are no 'borders' between things, there can be no individuality, and without individuality there can be no definition.) I doubt if she sees the source of her problem; but at least she was honest enough to admit it and to express it. (Most materialists/evolutionists simply will not admit the problems that are rampant within the m. wview.)

- That man and 'nature' are separate in no way makes them antagonistic. The non-human world (nature) was created for man; that being the case man and 'nature' were once a perfect fit. If you accept the biblical doctrine of the Fall, this is no longer the case, and there is no conflict within this model. The conflict isn't caused by any inherent problem, but by man's sinful nature. What does all that theological stuff mean? It means that there need not be a problem; that it's not necessary for man to abuse the environment, that it's not inevitable. Man's fallen nature means he will always, to some extent, abuse the natural world, but there's no reason this need lead to disastrous consequences. (eg. the end of the world scenarios) Man was created to be a steward of god's creation, and if he adopts that role and limits himself to it, life can go on for untold millenia. Being a steward means being responsible. Man has a duty to care for the earth. The bible in no sense teaches that man is free to do what he pleases with the natural world.

Notes;
1. Defining Nature Produces a Dilemma Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/09/2008
2. Fern Wickson, “What is nature, if it’s more than just a place without people?”, Nature 456, 29 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456029b.
3. Man isn't separate from nature in the sense he tore himself free from it (as in Michelangelo's famous sculpture) but in the sense he was created separate from it. (i.e. in the sense of being a steward over it.)
4. Nature;
- c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature.
- if this is correct, our idea of nature has been borrowed (expanded) from the idea of human nature.
- nature is that which is born (generation) A strict materialism wouldn't speak of nature, as this would mean it was born, that it had a parent. M. claims that the first living organism had no parent.
5. Dictionary definitions;
American heritage dictionary;
#1. noun; The material world and its phenomena.
#2. noun; The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
- the definitions are based on a m. wview entirely in this PC resource.
Century dictionary
- there are 39 references to nature given in this great dictionary. (Available at Wordnik.com) You could get a great basic education simply by reading this dictionary.
#6. 'The material and spiritual universe, as distinguished from the Creator; the system of things of which man forms a part; creation, especially that part of it which more immediately surrounds man and affects his senses, as mountains, seas, rivers, woods, etc.: as, the beauties of nature; in a restricted sense, whatever is produced without artificial aid, and exists unchanged by man, and is thus opposed to art. All things are artificial; for Nature is the art of God. Sir T. Browne, Religio Medici, i, 16.
- I think this means that in Brown's opinion all things are created; not just the things man makes. ie. nothing comes into being by chance and time acting upon matter. (However things may change by that process, after they've been created.)