Darwinism: If everything has a natural cause, where is the place for God?

(Commentary on "Darwinism: If everything has a natural cause, what place would God take?" by P. Aragão, published on the Mensageiro Luterano, July, 2009)

The title question is pertinent and goes beyond the discussion about Darwin and the theory of Evolution. Pastor Aragão correctly argues that the advancement of science after the end of the Middle Ages progressively removed the notion of the human being as the "crown of creation" in nature and of the Creator as an explanation for natural phenomena. At the risk of being controversial, we want to argue that this is not such a bad thing.

It is true that the theories of the origin of the universe and the origin and evolution of life have been abused by atheists to argue against the existence of God, but this error alone does not invalidate these theories. After all, Christian doctrine was also abused more than once to justify atrocities. Without going into the merits of Darwin's theory, we can say that any scientific theory today necessarily excludes God as an explanation for natural phenomena. Even the Intelligent Design theory, if it one day gained scientific acceptance, would simply reduce this intelligent cause to a natural, not a divine law. The reason for this is the Scientific Method, which requires the accumulation of observable and measurable evidence and its analysis with the use of logic and with the formulation and testing of hypotheses to arrive at a theory.

While we accept nowadays without issues theories such as gravitation and relativity, we Christians have difficulty when it comes to theories about the distant past of the universe and of life on earth. This difficulty stems from the insistence on attributing scientific value to the description of Genesis. To use a counterexample, consider the conception. While we affirm that God has created each of us marvellously in the womb (Ps 139), we Christians accept that the scientific description of the process of fertilization and genetic transmission omits any reference to the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This clear distinction is made both in our schools and in the practice of the medical profession. In the same way, Christian scientists must always separate the revealed truth, full of divine supernatural actions, from the apparent and observable natural phenomena which are the objects of science. Pastor Aragão explains well that Scripture does not care to be in agreement with current theories, but it wants to reveal to us what we need to know for our salvation. Christian scientists, on the other hand, cannot use the revealed Word as the basis of their theories, since in it God explains to us things that can only be understood by faith, and that by definition we can not observe or conclude by reason.

Therefore, we conclude that God plays a prominent role in answering the questions "Why are we here?", "Who are we?", "What does life mean?" and "Where do we go?", which are outside the scope of science (contrary to what this article seems to imply), while science uses its rational methods to try to explain "how" nature works and "how" (apparently) nature has come this far. We, Christian scientists, do not lose sight of the Creator when we work, but like lawyers and economists our faith is primarily reflected in professional ethical behaviour and it should not objectively affect our theories. At the same time as we affirm by faith the creation of Genesis 1-3 and Heb 11:3, to base scientific theories on these accounts would be tantamount to proposing an economic theory based on Matt 6:25-34.

Carlos F. Lange (Professor of Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada) and 

Émille Ishida (PhD student in Physics, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro)