James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) is an anomaly among scientists. Charles Darwin was Maxwell’s contemporary, but the similarity in their work and worldviews ends there. While many scientists in the early years of the Scientific Revolution, beginning with the 17th century, were unashamed Christians who did not hesitate to express their faith, by the mid-19th century that picture had changed. Enlightenment thinking, with its positive liberating effects on the human spirit, gave many people, scientists included, a sense of self-sufficiency and self-empowerment. At the risk of oversimplifying things, their “need” for and acknowledgement of God as an integral part of their view of natural reality, was diminished. This new outlook nurtured and strengthened the conclusions of naturalistic scientists. The germination of Darwin’s broad evolutionary proposals found fertile ground. James Clerk Maxwell stands apart as exceptional.
Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism incorporated and unified the pioneering discoveries of electricity and magnetism from the previous 50 years. He discovered that visible light was an electromagnetic wave. He taught that many different electromagnetic wavelengths, longer and shorter than those of visible light, should be possible and anticipated their discovery. The complete range of wavelengths, from long to short, became known as the electromagnetic spectrum. Shortly after Maxwell’s death, radio waves and X-rays were demonstrated. Application of knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum is a landmark advance in science. Without such application, our 21st century lives would be very different. Albert Einstein pronounced Maxwell’s work “the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.”
The story of James Clerk Maxwell is one of unparalleled inspiration. As a young man he was gifted with curiosity and creativity. He never relinquished respect for the spiritual truths of his parents’ Presbyterian and Anglican traditions. Later, at age 22, he experienced what has been called an “evangelical” conversion. Thereafter, he never shied from expressing his deeply held Christian faith. There was never a hint of “God-of-the-gaps” explanations for any scientific principle he ever discovered. In addition to his cornerstone theory of electromagnetism which sets him apart, he investigated many other topics, including the nature of Saturn’s rings, color photography, viscosity of gases, and theory of heat.
He was ahead of his time in rejecting the use of bad science to promote a particular interpretation of Genesis scripture, pointing out that ongoing scientific discoveries would enlighten interpretation of scripture. He anticipated the modern discussion of design in the natural world by observing and describing “the ordered uniformity rather than the peculiarity and complexity of nature, as signs of the creator.” In many letters to his wife and others his profound faith was expressed: “Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to His righteousness and are willing to receive His gift. They are to be conformed to the image of His Son…” His advice to scientists and non-scientists alike was suffused with a Christian worldview: “I think that men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think that Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”
Most science historians would acknowledge that Maxwell’s contributions to science stand out as perhaps pre-eminent over the centuries from Newton to Einstein. But many writers fail to mention James Clerk Maxwell’s Christian faith. The philosophy of modern secular science is governed by the NOMA principle, in which science and faith are considered non-overlapping, separate realms. After he died, one of his colleagues wrote: “We his contemporaries at college, have seen in him high powers of mind and great capacity and original views, conjoined with deep humility before his God, reverent submission to His will, and hearty belief in the love and atonement of that Divine Savior Who was his portion and comforter in trouble and sickness.” Like Maxwell, most Christians working in 21st century science would not condone separation of the realms as one of their paramount operational principles. Rather, they would endorse the Apostle Paul’s statement in Acts 17:28 as a guiding principle in every aspect of their lives: “In Him we live, and move and have our being.”
Friday, December 26, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Seeing the Light
“We don’t really see each other in this classroom. Instead, we only see the light that is reflected from each other.” This riddle-like proposition has always baffled science students when proposed in the classroom. Light is a type of energy which streams toward us from objects as close as the page you are now reading, or as far away as a galaxy a billion light years distant. When our eyes are open, information from billions of light data points streams into our eyes each millisecond. Each time we redirect our line of vision, our eyes receive information from a different set of light data points. Billions of retinal cells then spring into action, instantly transmitting billions of individual electrical messages to vision centers in our brain. The interpretation and meaning of the visual message is then riveted into our consciousness. The term “instant recognition” acquires a more noble meaning when we describe such wondrous events in this way.
Our knowledge of the nature of light has expanded enormously in the past century. Isaac Newton concluded in the 17th century that light was composed of particles. In the next centruies, scientific thinking wavered between two beliefs: either light is composed of particles or light is a wave. Many famous scientists weighed in on the question. Modern thinking endorses a wave/particle duality. Light behaves as if it were a wave and a particle. The discrete particles are called photons--massless packets of energy on a high speed journey.
The expression “seeing the light” means that we now understand what we formerly did not understand. Light is symbolic of knowledge and understanding. Light from the objects in our physical vision is saturated with information about the objects we are observing. We are able to perceive size, shape, color, and motion. These perceptions may help us make predictions and adjust our actions to our advantage. The Bible often uses the term LIGHT to communicate spiritual concepts. For example, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105) and, “The unfolding of your words gives light” (Psalm 119:130 NIV). God’s word is light, a communicator of vital information about Himself, just as physical light streaming into our eyes from physical objects around us carries with it vital information about those objects.
As we study details of light, sound, or any other type of energy, we discover a world of intricacy and order. Research scientists in specialized fields are able to describe light and sound with the precision of mathematical equations. For the non-scientist, skilled professionals are able to communicate the apparent consistency and beauty of facts about these energy types, how they work, how they impact us, and how we apply knowledge of them. It is the opinion of many scientists who are Christians that nature’s orderliness speaks not only of the care God used when He created, but also of His very existence.
Our knowledge of the nature of light has expanded enormously in the past century. Isaac Newton concluded in the 17th century that light was composed of particles. In the next centruies, scientific thinking wavered between two beliefs: either light is composed of particles or light is a wave. Many famous scientists weighed in on the question. Modern thinking endorses a wave/particle duality. Light behaves as if it were a wave and a particle. The discrete particles are called photons--massless packets of energy on a high speed journey.
The expression “seeing the light” means that we now understand what we formerly did not understand. Light is symbolic of knowledge and understanding. Light from the objects in our physical vision is saturated with information about the objects we are observing. We are able to perceive size, shape, color, and motion. These perceptions may help us make predictions and adjust our actions to our advantage. The Bible often uses the term LIGHT to communicate spiritual concepts. For example, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Psalm 119:105) and, “The unfolding of your words gives light” (Psalm 119:130 NIV). God’s word is light, a communicator of vital information about Himself, just as physical light streaming into our eyes from physical objects around us carries with it vital information about those objects.
As we study details of light, sound, or any other type of energy, we discover a world of intricacy and order. Research scientists in specialized fields are able to describe light and sound with the precision of mathematical equations. For the non-scientist, skilled professionals are able to communicate the apparent consistency and beauty of facts about these energy types, how they work, how they impact us, and how we apply knowledge of them. It is the opinion of many scientists who are Christians that nature’s orderliness speaks not only of the care God used when He created, but also of His very existence.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Biometric Uniqueness
So you think you’re unique? Modern technology has affirmed what theologians have always known in a spiritual sense: Each of us is unique in the eyes of our Creator. That uniqueness also includes many different physical characteristics. A methodology called biometric verification has expanded far beyond the long-known handwriting analysis and fingerprinting. In the past few decades we have added, among others, voice prints, iris scanning, and DNA as identification tools. The latter two are as close to a sure thing as one could get. The chances of misidentification using them are virtually zero. The first method mentioned, voiceprints, graphically analyzes vocal sounds in a variety of ways. There is a musical quality associated with many of the sounds we hear, so I’ll use musical instruments to illustrate the point.
Consider a plucked violin string. Making our math easy, consider a string which vibrates back and forth 100 times per second. It would produce a sound of 100 hertz, displacing our eardrums 100 times per second. We would hear a “fundamental” pitch of 100 hz. The violin string would also vibrate in two parts, three parts, four parts, and so on. These string sections would produce pitches of 200 hz, 300 hz, and 400 hz, respectively, called overtones. The 200 hz tone is one octave higher, and each successive tone is higher, but by a smaller and smaller musical interval. What do we hear when the string is plucked? We hear only the pitch of 100 hz, but its sound is enriched and made unique by the overtones. Each instrument, when producing a pitch of 100 hz, sounds different from any other instrument because of the differing proportions and intensity of its overtones.
When I learned to play a baritone horn in high school, I quickly discovered that I could play many successive higher notes, without changing the fingering, just by tightening my lips in the mouthpiece. That’s because the entire column of air inside the horn was also vibrating as a half column, a one-third column, a one-fourth column, and so on. I could make the overtones sound alone by altering the mouthpiece conditions. Bugle players have no valves at all in their instruments. They create their melodies using only overtones, but they are limited to a smaller number of playable notes.
How many different human voices can you recognize? Dozens? Hundreds? The vocal cords and voice box of each person you know produce overtones slightly different from anyone else because the thickness, length, and physical quality of each person’s vocal cords are different from anyone else. This results in an endless variety of musical and vocal abilities and characteristics among our acquaintances. In other words, each person’s voice is unique. Beyond the physical processes of sound production, the miracle of the hearing process gives us even greater reason to acknowledge God’s wonders. This is a subject for a future post.
Consider a plucked violin string. Making our math easy, consider a string which vibrates back and forth 100 times per second. It would produce a sound of 100 hertz, displacing our eardrums 100 times per second. We would hear a “fundamental” pitch of 100 hz. The violin string would also vibrate in two parts, three parts, four parts, and so on. These string sections would produce pitches of 200 hz, 300 hz, and 400 hz, respectively, called overtones. The 200 hz tone is one octave higher, and each successive tone is higher, but by a smaller and smaller musical interval. What do we hear when the string is plucked? We hear only the pitch of 100 hz, but its sound is enriched and made unique by the overtones. Each instrument, when producing a pitch of 100 hz, sounds different from any other instrument because of the differing proportions and intensity of its overtones.
When I learned to play a baritone horn in high school, I quickly discovered that I could play many successive higher notes, without changing the fingering, just by tightening my lips in the mouthpiece. That’s because the entire column of air inside the horn was also vibrating as a half column, a one-third column, a one-fourth column, and so on. I could make the overtones sound alone by altering the mouthpiece conditions. Bugle players have no valves at all in their instruments. They create their melodies using only overtones, but they are limited to a smaller number of playable notes.
How many different human voices can you recognize? Dozens? Hundreds? The vocal cords and voice box of each person you know produce overtones slightly different from anyone else because the thickness, length, and physical quality of each person’s vocal cords are different from anyone else. This results in an endless variety of musical and vocal abilities and characteristics among our acquaintances. In other words, each person’s voice is unique. Beyond the physical processes of sound production, the miracle of the hearing process gives us even greater reason to acknowledge God’s wonders. This is a subject for a future post.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
If a Tree Falls
An old philosophical riddle asks, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The debate over this riddle mainly relates to the difference between human perception and the existence (or non-existence) of reality existing outside human perception and awareness. Philosophers have debated similar questions for centuries.
With respect to events triggered by a tree falling in a forest, discoveries since the scientific revolution have enabled researchers to measure, describe, and understand in great detail the physical processes which occur in sound production and transmission. These include the cause of sounds, formation of air compressions and rarefactions, speed of sound, how it is reflected and absorbed, and numerous other events taking place in the sound transmission medium.
In Leviticus 26:36, the Old Testament warned that “the sound of a wind blown leaf” would throw the disobedient Israelites into a panic. In our last post we spoke of a much louder sound, that produced by human vocal cords in normal conversation. Several hundred compression waves--regions of slightly more densely-packed molecules--strike the eardrums of listeners each second. One may wonder how much pressure increase there is in one of these compressions compared with normal, undisturbed air. The answer is a startling, mere one millionth greater pressure than in normal air carrying no sound. That is a 0.0001 % increase, causing our eardrums to be displaced a mere billionth of a centimeter. If our ears were very much more sensitive, we may even be able to hear air molecules in a sound-free room vibrating with their normal kinetic (motion) energy.
The “If a Tree Falls” riddle does not distinguish between the physical events taking place in air and the subjective experience of the listener. The answer depends on whether we are describing physical events in air or subjective experiences in the listener’s mind, or perhaps, both. The physical events could be described as “sound.” Resulting subjective experience is described as “hearing.” The answer also depends on whether we are present in the forest, or located at a great distance where the physical sound cannot reach us. Physical sound is studied by the physical scientist. The subjective effect of sound on the listener is of intense interest to the physiologist or psychologist. But the natural curiosity and sense of wonder of “just ordinary folks” concerning sound and hearing are wonderfully supported by discoveries in both fields.
With respect to events triggered by a tree falling in a forest, discoveries since the scientific revolution have enabled researchers to measure, describe, and understand in great detail the physical processes which occur in sound production and transmission. These include the cause of sounds, formation of air compressions and rarefactions, speed of sound, how it is reflected and absorbed, and numerous other events taking place in the sound transmission medium.
In Leviticus 26:36, the Old Testament warned that “the sound of a wind blown leaf” would throw the disobedient Israelites into a panic. In our last post we spoke of a much louder sound, that produced by human vocal cords in normal conversation. Several hundred compression waves--regions of slightly more densely-packed molecules--strike the eardrums of listeners each second. One may wonder how much pressure increase there is in one of these compressions compared with normal, undisturbed air. The answer is a startling, mere one millionth greater pressure than in normal air carrying no sound. That is a 0.0001 % increase, causing our eardrums to be displaced a mere billionth of a centimeter. If our ears were very much more sensitive, we may even be able to hear air molecules in a sound-free room vibrating with their normal kinetic (motion) energy.
The “If a Tree Falls” riddle does not distinguish between the physical events taking place in air and the subjective experience of the listener. The answer depends on whether we are describing physical events in air or subjective experiences in the listener’s mind, or perhaps, both. The physical events could be described as “sound.” Resulting subjective experience is described as “hearing.” The answer also depends on whether we are present in the forest, or located at a great distance where the physical sound cannot reach us. Physical sound is studied by the physical scientist. The subjective effect of sound on the listener is of intense interest to the physiologist or psychologist. But the natural curiosity and sense of wonder of “just ordinary folks” concerning sound and hearing are wonderfully supported by discoveries in both fields.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Sound Principles
Several of the body’s senses rely on energy signals received from locations remote from the body. Sound is one example. Our sense of hearing relies on sound, carried mostly by the medium of air. The Bible speaks of many sound-producing musical instruments, such as trumpets, flutes, harps, and cymbals. It also speaks of the sounds of wind, moving water, rainfall, and thunder, along with less pleasing sounds of chariots in battle and grinding millstones. The sense of hearing is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity, but the means by which sound travels through the sound-carrying medium is unfamiliar to most.
First, we know that sound does not travel through a vacuum. It needs a medium such as air, although liquids and solids also carry sound. In a soundless room there are trillions of air molecules zigzagging around with kinetic energy, colliding with each other and with the objects in the room. Without a sound producer, however, not much else of interest is happening. The most common producer of sound in air is the vibration of a solid body such as a string, rod, bell, or the human vocal cords of our larynx. What happens in the air when vocal cords or other objects vibrate is fascinating.
The vocal cords of a typical man vibrate back and forth about 120 times per second during speech; the average woman’s cords vibrate 210 times, the average child’s 300 times. Try to envision a vocal cord vibrating outward just once. The surrounding free air molecules are slightly compressed for just an instant, creating a region of slightly greater molecular density. This is called a compression: the air pressure is slightly increased. The compression then starts traveling away while the vocal cord pops back to its original position. A low pressure area is created in this “pop-back” area because the air is slightly thinner. When the cord vibrates outward again, another compression is formed and starts to travel away. If we could visualize the situation we would see many areas of compression separated by areas of rarefaction all traveling away from the vocal cords.
If you have ever stretched a “Slinky” coil toy along the length of a table and given one end a series of quick tweaks, you could see the compressions traveling along the Slinky separated by the rarefactions. Comparing sound production in air to a Slinky is a strong analogy, except that Slinky compression waves are slowpokes compared with sound waves in air. Sound waves travel about 1100 feet per second, or about one mile in five seconds. During this Advent season, the sound of carols produced by voices, bells, and drummer boys will all be the result of air compression waves impacting your eardrums. Enjoy the celebration!
First, we know that sound does not travel through a vacuum. It needs a medium such as air, although liquids and solids also carry sound. In a soundless room there are trillions of air molecules zigzagging around with kinetic energy, colliding with each other and with the objects in the room. Without a sound producer, however, not much else of interest is happening. The most common producer of sound in air is the vibration of a solid body such as a string, rod, bell, or the human vocal cords of our larynx. What happens in the air when vocal cords or other objects vibrate is fascinating.
The vocal cords of a typical man vibrate back and forth about 120 times per second during speech; the average woman’s cords vibrate 210 times, the average child’s 300 times. Try to envision a vocal cord vibrating outward just once. The surrounding free air molecules are slightly compressed for just an instant, creating a region of slightly greater molecular density. This is called a compression: the air pressure is slightly increased. The compression then starts traveling away while the vocal cord pops back to its original position. A low pressure area is created in this “pop-back” area because the air is slightly thinner. When the cord vibrates outward again, another compression is formed and starts to travel away. If we could visualize the situation we would see many areas of compression separated by areas of rarefaction all traveling away from the vocal cords.
If you have ever stretched a “Slinky” coil toy along the length of a table and given one end a series of quick tweaks, you could see the compressions traveling along the Slinky separated by the rarefactions. Comparing sound production in air to a Slinky is a strong analogy, except that Slinky compression waves are slowpokes compared with sound waves in air. Sound waves travel about 1100 feet per second, or about one mile in five seconds. During this Advent season, the sound of carols produced by voices, bells, and drummer boys will all be the result of air compression waves impacting your eardrums. Enjoy the celebration!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Human Element in Science
Robust discussion of differing points of view makes science, and many other human projects, healthy and viable. For some, such discussions are distasteful and threatening. Others find such intellectual investigation and analysis downright stimulating. For those people, the discussion process has intrinsic worth and may be as stimulating as the discovery of truth. But others are rigidly secure in their beliefs, finding little value in pursuing further discussion or analysis of the issues.
Let’s give some examples. I’ve had discussions in the past decade with many people who embrace different locations on the human origins spectrum: naturalistic evolutionists at one end, theistic evolutionists in the middle, and creationists on the other extreme. Of course, creationists may be generally categorized as young earth or old earth. But even the creationist and intelligent design spectra have intermediate positions. Likewise, many differences pervade the evolutionary camp. Some ID proponents think ID should be included under the umbrella of science. Some do not. There are some creationists who do not feel ID is science, as currently formulated, including the Day-age creationist organization scholars from Reasons to Believe. At least one atheist, Bradley Monton, University of Colorado professor of philosophy of science, states, “Arguments for ID are stronger than most realize.” He also “maintain(s) that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science.” Monton feels a more important question to consider is whether ID is true.
It is not commonly realized among non-scientists that there is a potent “human element” in science, even in the midst of the wonderful achievements of the scientific venture. Del Ratzsch says, “Science is a decidedly human pursuit.” In this blog we have spoken of how personal worldview and philosophy drive not only how the research and development process in science is conducted, but also how conclusions about reality are formed. A reading of some of the vast quantity of literature on the history and philosophy of science is instructive for discovering how science actually works.
Returning to our initial point, the human element applies both to the conduct of scientists and to the response of the public to the science. Let’s call the latter group the “consumers.” There is a wide spectrum of consumer reaction to the conclusions of science. When those conclusions support the consumer’s worldview/philosophy, there is acceptance with little objection, even if the science is weak. On the other hand, sometimes even in the face of strong and convincing evidence, the consumer rejects the conclusions of valid science. And finally, there is the reaction of the middle-ground consumer whose support fluctuates between contradictory scientific conclusions. If the fluctuation is grounded in a strong desire to discover the real truth rather than merely confirming one’s own worldview/philosophy, selection of this alternative may be the most desirable, in view of the self-correcting nature of good science. We may thereby come closer to embracing real truth.
Let’s give some examples. I’ve had discussions in the past decade with many people who embrace different locations on the human origins spectrum: naturalistic evolutionists at one end, theistic evolutionists in the middle, and creationists on the other extreme. Of course, creationists may be generally categorized as young earth or old earth. But even the creationist and intelligent design spectra have intermediate positions. Likewise, many differences pervade the evolutionary camp. Some ID proponents think ID should be included under the umbrella of science. Some do not. There are some creationists who do not feel ID is science, as currently formulated, including the Day-age creationist organization scholars from Reasons to Believe. At least one atheist, Bradley Monton, University of Colorado professor of philosophy of science, states, “Arguments for ID are stronger than most realize.” He also “maintain(s) that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science.” Monton feels a more important question to consider is whether ID is true.
It is not commonly realized among non-scientists that there is a potent “human element” in science, even in the midst of the wonderful achievements of the scientific venture. Del Ratzsch says, “Science is a decidedly human pursuit.” In this blog we have spoken of how personal worldview and philosophy drive not only how the research and development process in science is conducted, but also how conclusions about reality are formed. A reading of some of the vast quantity of literature on the history and philosophy of science is instructive for discovering how science actually works.
Returning to our initial point, the human element applies both to the conduct of scientists and to the response of the public to the science. Let’s call the latter group the “consumers.” There is a wide spectrum of consumer reaction to the conclusions of science. When those conclusions support the consumer’s worldview/philosophy, there is acceptance with little objection, even if the science is weak. On the other hand, sometimes even in the face of strong and convincing evidence, the consumer rejects the conclusions of valid science. And finally, there is the reaction of the middle-ground consumer whose support fluctuates between contradictory scientific conclusions. If the fluctuation is grounded in a strong desire to discover the real truth rather than merely confirming one’s own worldview/philosophy, selection of this alternative may be the most desirable, in view of the self-correcting nature of good science. We may thereby come closer to embracing real truth.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Natural Theology
The beauty and operation of our physical world has always triggered deep human reflections on how our sphere of existence manifests the existence of a deity. These reflections have prevailed among humanity for thousands of years. They have occurred among believers in polytheism, such as the Greeks and Romans, as well as believers in monotheism, ranging from the ancient Hebrews to present-day Christians. This intrinsic human longing speaks, perhaps, more about the reality of the Deity than does the apparent beauty, design, and functionality itself. Natural theology may be defined by the title of William Paley’s 1802 classic work: “Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearance of Nature.” We could also quote the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans: “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 men are without excuse” Rom. 1:20 (NIV).
Historic natural theology studies the natural world and makes conclusions about divine origin without recognizing subsequent special divine revelation such as transcendent miracles (parting of the Red Sea, immediate bodily healing, the Incarnation, the Resurrection). This is not to say such miracles do not occur, but they do not fall under the province of natural theology. In the many centuries before 1500 AD, natural theology dealt with apparent “plan” or “purpose” in the universe. Then, at the beginning of the scientific revolution, theistic scientists such as Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Pascal, and Boyle used their belief in God as the universe’s designer and the author/sustainer of nature’s laws to inspire them in their creative work and innovative discovery process. Natural theology acquired a somewhat different flavor. They expressed their belief in a designer without reservation. Explicit design proposals were made by William Paley in the 1802 work previously cited, and in the Bridgewater Treatises, writings by scientists commissioned by Rev. Francis Henry Egerton in 1829. These works credited God for the design features and grandeur of the natural world.
Natural theology is still a term in broad use today. But treatment of the topic in journals such as Theology and Science and in forums featuring famous scholars (such as The Gifford Lectures) have taken a turn away from proposing evidence or proof for God’s existence and action from the world of nature. The Gifford Lectures website explains “A more modern view of natural theology suggests that reason does not so much seek to supply a proof for the existence of God as to provide a coherent form drawn from the insights of religion to pull together the best of human knowledge from all areas of human activity.” Modern scholars attempt to integrate science, history, morality, and the arts to achieve a “general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place.” Such a treatment of the topic may disappoint those who desire a “quick fix” proof of God’s existence by merely observing nature’s wonders. Believers, however, should become aware of the strengths and weaknesses in theological arguments offered in today’s world by people of all backgrounds.
Dr. Owen Gingrich, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and the History of Science at Harvard University, has a realistic viewpoint as stated in his article “Is There a Role for Natural Theology Today?”: “If natural theology deals with hints and coherencies, not proofs and forced convictions, then I think it is on safe and reasonable ground.” In the same article, Gingrich supplements that view with his own personal conviction: “For me, it makes sense to suppose that the superintelligence, the transcendence, the ground of being…has revealed itself through prophets in all ages, and supremely in the life of Jesus Christ.”
Historic natural theology studies the natural world and makes conclusions about divine origin without recognizing subsequent special divine revelation such as transcendent miracles (parting of the Red Sea, immediate bodily healing, the Incarnation, the Resurrection). This is not to say such miracles do not occur, but they do not fall under the province of natural theology. In the many centuries before 1500 AD, natural theology dealt with apparent “plan” or “purpose” in the universe. Then, at the beginning of the scientific revolution, theistic scientists such as Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Pascal, and Boyle used their belief in God as the universe’s designer and the author/sustainer of nature’s laws to inspire them in their creative work and innovative discovery process. Natural theology acquired a somewhat different flavor. They expressed their belief in a designer without reservation. Explicit design proposals were made by William Paley in the 1802 work previously cited, and in the Bridgewater Treatises, writings by scientists commissioned by Rev. Francis Henry Egerton in 1829. These works credited God for the design features and grandeur of the natural world.
Natural theology is still a term in broad use today. But treatment of the topic in journals such as Theology and Science and in forums featuring famous scholars (such as The Gifford Lectures) have taken a turn away from proposing evidence or proof for God’s existence and action from the world of nature. The Gifford Lectures website explains “A more modern view of natural theology suggests that reason does not so much seek to supply a proof for the existence of God as to provide a coherent form drawn from the insights of religion to pull together the best of human knowledge from all areas of human activity.” Modern scholars attempt to integrate science, history, morality, and the arts to achieve a “general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place.” Such a treatment of the topic may disappoint those who desire a “quick fix” proof of God’s existence by merely observing nature’s wonders. Believers, however, should become aware of the strengths and weaknesses in theological arguments offered in today’s world by people of all backgrounds.
Dr. Owen Gingrich, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and the History of Science at Harvard University, has a realistic viewpoint as stated in his article “Is There a Role for Natural Theology Today?”: “If natural theology deals with hints and coherencies, not proofs and forced convictions, then I think it is on safe and reasonable ground.” In the same article, Gingrich supplements that view with his own personal conviction: “For me, it makes sense to suppose that the superintelligence, the transcendence, the ground of being…has revealed itself through prophets in all ages, and supremely in the life of Jesus Christ.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)