Creation, nature, and science

A few more thoughts on the subject of nature. [I'll be referring to a lecture by R. C. Sproul on science]

- The typical approach evangelicals take to science is to make a distinction between nature and grace. (This way of looking at things was brought to prominence by Thomas Aquinas.) God has two books they like to say; the book of nature and the book of revelation. In some unfortunate versions of this you hear about learning how to get to heaven from scripture and how the heavens go by studying nature. (This statement fails the cuteness test; i.e. statements that are this cute aren't likely to have much meaningful content.) The summary they give people is that all truth is one; and so theology and science cannot be in conflict. [1.]

- The trouble with this distinction is that in our day, nature has come to mean uncreated matter; and so the distinction between nature and grace has come to stand for the antithesis between Materialism and Theism. (The real distinction is between general revelation and special revelation; between God's created world and God's word.)

- The idea is that all truth is one; i.e. that 'natural' truth and biblical truth are at heart one. I would agree; but there's two huge problems. How do you know this? This is not a 'natural' truth; one that comes from studying nature. It's a deduction from scripture, but people say it like it was obvious. In fact naturalists love this statement, and embrace it; which in their case makes no sense. Evangelicals never say how they know this principle is true. Is there some experiment that proves it? Are the truths of Islam and science one? Are the truths of Hinduism and science one?

- The second problem is this; how do you know what the scientist says is true? Because he tells you it is? Apparently the consensus of the moment is supposed to constitute truth. This leads us to adopt a position where we'll always be wrong. (One way to avoid this conundrum is to deny that science gives us truth. I think we'd be better off if scientists would restrict themselves to talking in terms of hypotheses and theories.) The history books are full of cases where the scientific establishment got things wrong.

- R. C. Sproul says the bible is the highest source of truth; but how does he know this? Is this a conclusion reached by science? The atheist doesn't accept this idea. This is supposed to be a 'neutral' methodology but over and over it relies on scripture for its authority.

- Sproul says it's possible for 'science' to correct theology. [but not the word of God he hastens to add] Okay; is it possible then for theology to correct science? You hear the first, but rarely hear of the second. This in itself speaks volumes. If only the first is possible, Christianity is on the road to oblivion. (i.e. since most or all of her doctrines are denied by materialist science) [2.] Over the last couple centuries, I cannot recall an instance of 'theology' correcting 'science'. (This seems to be because our Christian leaders don't really believe all truth is one at all; but instead believe naturalism is the only way to truth, that theological truths exist only in the realm of feeling and imagination.

- There have been a few theologians and Christian thinkers that have tried to correct scientists; but so far the church (as a whole) has hung these people out to dry, and either ignored them or censured them. (e.g. deny them teaching posts, or publish their works.)

Notes;
1. e.g. a lecture on science by R. C. Sproul/The Christian worldview
2. The number of doctrines and truths of Christianity that materialist deny is a long one, and includes; God, creation, the image of God, the soul, sin, the Fall, the Flood, prophecy, special revelation, miracles, the Atonement, the Incarnation, life after death, heaven, hell, the final judgement, moral absolutes, etc. If 'science' is always right, and is the final arbiter of truth, all of these doctrinal truths will have to be given up.