Do the Laws of Nature Exclude Miracles?

I loved this chapter. Not because it gives a specific answer to any question, but because it made me think. A lot. Ward asks, "Are the laws of nature absolute?" As a scientist, I would say yes. The "discovery" of the laws of nature in science took away the ancient spirituality of the world, in a sense. Before physical and mathematical laws were understood (before Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.), the world was a playground for the spirits of the universe. If something were to fall from the sky, it would be because the gods wanted it to fall, not because gravity brought it towards the earth. The revolution in human thinking based on laws of nature turned the world into more of a mechanical function rather than the workings of supernatural presence. Contrary to thought, this revolution did not take away from religion. In a sense, it made belief in the higher power stronger, and it made miracles more evident, thus, God more powerful.

God created the world as a perfect machine and has the power to intervene. Any transgression from natural laws can be seen as divine intervention and purposeful, at that. Laws of nature, then, ARE absolute; anything that defies the law of nature can be defined as a miracle. Philosopher David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding gave a secular insight. He did not believe in God, but took a more rational approach to defining a true miracle. His was based on primarily probabilities, or, rather, improbabilities. For example, if someone were to say they witnessed a miracle, then there are two improbabilities that should be weighted before determining whether or not the event actually occurred: The miracle itself is improbable, and the falsehood of the story is also improbable. So one must take into account which is more improbable, whether or not the person would lie, or the event itself.

Now, is the resurrection of Jesus a miracle? The event itself is improbable. Highly improbable, actually, considering no one has been resurrected from the dead since. But, the probability that the mass of people (who saw Jesus at different places and times after his resurrection) lied about his reappearance is far less probable and can thus be considered a miracle. We know that Jesus is capable of performing miracles; we have all read the New Testament and have heard of his miraculous actions. In this case, God is intervening, as he promised he would in the Old Testament.

Miracles are prominent in many religions. In fact, the Qur'an is considered a miracle because "no ordinary human poet could have created a text of such beauty and power" (83). Defiances in the laws of nature are possible and do occur, as with people that hear divine spirits or have visions of the dead. Some may not believe in these situations, but why limit God's power? If things are not going according to His plan, he will intervene.

Is Evolution Compatible with Creation?

In the third chapter, Ward asks how the "cruelty and waste" of evolution can be reconciled with creation by a good God. He first contrasts the medieval view of evolution with the modern form, then explains the differences between Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinistic Evolution.

Thomas Aquinas believed that something could only become hot if it were heated by something at least as hot. In essence, something could only come into existence if something greater were to create it.  This medieval view made it seem that, "stupid people can only be caused by even more stupid people and that God must be the most stupid, as well as the cleverest being there is...But God should also be the reddest and bluest and greenest of all things or perhaps the most brightly colored thing there is" (60). This differs from the modern view of evolution in that we believe that species grow upwards toward perfection. We evolve to stay alive; therefore, we technically develop from a lesser species.

There are many takes on the modern perspective of evolution. Creationism is a belief that the world was created exactly as described in the book of Genesis. Evolution, then, does not exist. According to the creationist theory, humans are not derived from a lesser species. It is important to distinguish creationism from the theory of Creation, which is highly compatible evolution. God created the universe to allow for mutation and change in species. There arises a problem, though, when considering the complexity of biological systems that could not have developed from evolution. Ward uses the bacterial flagellum as an example. This organism could not have evolved from a step-by-step process; therefore, it must have been intelligently designed. With the theory of intelligent design, God is the ultimate creator and allows for evolution to take place, but also guides the process. The specification of species is not completely random.

As an intermediate, Ward explains the view of Theistic Evolution. "What science shows is that evolution happened," he says, "Whether it is accidental or inevitable, blind or goal-oriented, is not conclusively decided by science" (75). He quotes a physical biochemist that takes a theistic approach to evolution: "God, he suggests, is 'an Improvisor of unsurpassed ingenuity' setting up a system in which chance and necessity interweave so that 'the full gamut of the potentialities of living matter could be explored'" (75). God does not merely watch, then, as species evolove (like Darwinian evolution suggests), but he does allow for chance to play a role in the development of species. Some things are created for a purpose, while some arise through natural selection. This, I believe, is theistic evolution.

Ward also briefly brings up an interesting point about suffering on earth. Why would God create a world in which there was suffering amongst his "perfect creations?" Because humans cannot live a perfect life. Theologians suggest that it is because we come with original sin. Scientist blame it on the laws of nature.  He writes, "if God arranged for perfect moral justice in human affairs, there could be no laws of nature at all" (73). Humankind cannot and will not exist without suffering. As a Christian, I believe that we are to endure suffering on earth so that we may be freed at the time of our death, just as Jesus did for us.