Creation vs Brute fact

Since few people seem interested in what I've got to say on the subject of origins (creation and evolution) I thought I'd post a fairly long quote about creation by theologian Cornelius Van Til. (In my opinion he's the most valuable theologian to read for background on the importance of the doctrine of creation to intellectual thought.)

Quotes and comments;

A. "The total picture we obtain from both modern science and modern philosophy is a complete rejection of the biblical notion of creation. It matters not whether this rejection comes in the form of an outright negation in the form of agnosticism or in the form of substituting another meaning for the word creation. As orthodox Christians we have to face the fact that we are at this point, as along the whole line of thought, out of accord with modern thought.... The assumption of brute fact is itself the most basic denial of the creation doctrine. And the assumption that man can of himself interpret brute facts is itself the denial of God as creator. We need therefore to challenge the very idea of brute fact. We need to challenge man's ability to interpret any fact unless that fact be created by God and unless man himself is created by God." [1.]

- What does Van Til mean by brute fact? This refers to the idea (in naturalist thought) that the universe is an independent and self-sufficient entity; that it had no creator, and that it needs no one to uphold or sustain it. At the heart of Van Til's conception of creation is a denial of brute facts; and the claim every fact is what it is because of the its place within the Providence of God.

Van Til goes on to deny that men can properly know the 'facts' (data) without reference to God. Since the universe was created by god, you can't understand anything correctly (fully) if you deny this. He goes further and denies that men could know the 'facts' (or data) if the universe were what the naturalist says it is. Allowing that an independent (brute) universe could exist, it would be impossible to say anything valid or truthful about it. (Such a universe would be a random process, and man himself would be a random process; all would be a matter of meaningless chance. Without God there would be no source of the absolute.)

Most scientists (Christian or non-Christian) deny what Van Til said, and insist that there are indeed brute facts; and that man can know what the 'facts' are without reference to God. Most of them insist that we live in a brute universe and that this poses no problem (i.e. as to knowledge or epistemology). In this scenario man's intellectual abilities are just taken as an unexplained and accidental given.

So who's right? Everyone will have to decide for themselves. Evidence that Van Til was right can be seen in the inability of 'science' to determine what the facts are when it comes to human experience. (i.e. the inability to bring 'fact' and value together.) Relativism and skepticism are more evidence that without God (without presupposing God) man can know nothing; that without God all man has is opinion and illusion. The materialist claims that the 'facts' (data) speak for themselves, but clearly they don't.

Summary;
Van Til claims that only if a creator God exists, and only if He created mankind, is knowledge possible; that facts only exist because of God and his will and plan for the universe.

Notes;
1. "Christian-Theistic Evidences," an unpublished class syllabus (Westminster Seminary, 1961), p. 106.
- for people who don't know Van Til, he belonged to the Reformed tradition, and was a professor at Westminster Seminary.
- He wrote a lot of material that relates to the issue of creation. In his book 'Systematic Theology' he has four chapters on various kinds of revelation. A lot of his book 'Christian Apologetics' also deals with the subject of creation.
2. I'm not big on the term brute fact;
Brute; 'Not associated with intelligence or intellectual effort; unintelligent; irrational.' - Century Dictionary
- the etymology goes back to the idea of a dumb beast.
3. I guess we could say that while there might be dark matter (I doubt it) there isn't any brute matter. (That's the best joke you're gonna get out of me today I'm afraid.)
4. I've never seen any account for man's intellectual abilities in terms of materialism that came close to being credible.