"The God Who Made It All"
The vital point isn't how we were created, but by whom and why
Sermon Preached by
The Rev. Dr. Andrew Stirling
Sunday, May 7, 2006
Text: Matthew 6:25-34
Throughout the centuries, reaching a terrible climax during the time of Galileo, the relationship between the scientific and the religious communities has been a difficult one. It has been characterized by mistrust, innuendo, insinuation, fear and sometimes even a sense that the two are irreconcilable. In the 19th century in particular, the clash between religion and science took on a proportion the like of which the world had never seen before. With the rise of Darwinism, and especially materialistic Darwinism, the church and religious people, who held very firmly and very strongly to their doctrine of creation and belief that an intelligent being is behind the design of the world, found themselves on a collision course with science.
This very conflict between religion and science, now apparent particularly in the United States, but also in other places throughout the world, is taking on a renewed fervour. Diverse camps are battling through educational curricula for the minds of young people and for the future, many believe, of the human race.
In light of this, I sat back a few days ago and read an article by one of the leading scientists of our time, Edward O. Wilson, a famous biologist who teaches at Harvard University. When I was in Boston last week, I actually walked by the lecture room where he has taught for many years, and where he penned his most famous book of a few years ago, Consilience, so I decided to peruse an interview with him in a local magazine.
He makes some flabbergasting statements and some eye-opening points that as Christians, we should listen to and understand. We may criticize them, and may come to a different conclusion, but nevertheless, we should understand. Wilson makes a fascinating point: As a biologist who has spent his whole life examining two particular creatures, ants and worms, he has concluded that in the diversity of all the species on earth, biologists have probably only discovered, classified, quantified and examined 10 per cent.
After all, he said, the vast majority of the earth is subterranean, under the surface, below what we see. Therefore, he makes the assumption that when you consider the vastness of the world itself and then factor in the subterranean nature of the earth and what can exist within it and underneath it, 10 per cent is probably a pretty conservative assessment of what we know. We probably have yet to discover 90 per cent, he says.
Now, all of this is based on reasoning and probability; it is not a proven fact but rather an assumption. Science has done a tremendous amount, and has examined a great deal, particularly over the last hundred years, he says. The degree of growth and expanse of knowledge, even as the universe itself has been expanding, really are mind-boggling. The interviewer then asks: “How do you appreciate, as a natural scientist the debate taking place about what is known as ”˜intelligent design' - this belief that there is an intelligent design to the universe, and a mind behind that design?”
Wilson makes a fascinating comment. He says that as a scientist, he cannot in any way corroborate that concept. In all honesty, as a materialistic scientist, looking at the evidence, he cannot see a design at work or a mind or a psychology or a brain that exists behind the creation of the universe. He looks at what has been created, and he does not necessarily see a mind. He continues, that it is one theory among many theories about the origins of the world, and while scientists are gaining tremendous insight into how the world and the universe came into being and what factors were in play, the concept of intelligent design is still posited as a theory rather than a factually based, substantive argument for a creator behind the universe.
As I thought about what he said, and spent some time talking to some scientists, something was dawning on me: The conflict between religion and science is problematic for one main reason - both scientist and theologians, both atheists (and not all scientist are atheists by any stretch of the imagination) and theists, people who believe in God, lack humility. This battle exists in so many places and is elevated beyond the point that it should be because we are not sufficiently humble.
For example, take science. At the heart of all good science is humility. Good science understands that you posit a hypothesis and then you look through the evidence and you finally come to a thesis or a conclusion. There will always be somebody else or something that will come along to posit a new hypothesis. Without new hypotheses, without new notions of understanding, without the testing of new evidence and theories, science would shrivel up and die. What science needs is the humility that recognizes that with every law that is established, every theory that is confirmed, there is always the potential for a new one to come along, for new evidence to be discovered that might call into question a particular theory or conclusion. This is at the heart of good science.
When I was in Boston I spent time with my brother-in-law. I always bow before my brother-in-law; he is far, far more clever than I. He has a Ph.D. in geophysics from Harvard. I can only understand the first word in the title of any of his papers - “The.” After that, I haven't got the foggiest idea what he is writing about! But he is brilliant, and over the years, he has done everything from examining moon rocks for NASA to doing work for oil companies. Every year, I try and spend time with my brother-in-law just to humble myself as a theologian (a good thing to do). I asked him this year, “Peter, what is new in the realm of geophysics? What are the new theories on the creation of the universe?”
He said, “It is amazing how over the last two years the black hole theory has not only developed, but new evidence is evolving.” Then, he tried to explain it to me. I had a coffee, and I just pretended by nodding that I understood! Actually, I did understand the substance of what he was saying, even if I didn't understand the complete detail with which he said it.
The substance of what he was saying was that there have been incredible new discoveries about the advance and expansion of the universe, and new insights into black holes. Then I asked Peter, “When you and I used to talk about this subject 10 years ago, did we not talk about it in different terms, with less certainty, less clarity?”
He replied, “Yes, of course! Our subject matter is continually evolving.” After all, it was thought for a long time that Newton was absolutely correct on everything, and now Newtonian physics is called into question on many different fronts. Science, as great and marvellous as it is, still needs a degree of humility.
Carl Sagan, who would have characterized himself as a materialistic Darwinist, talked about the complexity of the universe. In a fascinating paper that he wrote in 1978, The Dragons of Eden, he wrote, “A single human chromosome contains 20 billion bits of information. How much information is 20 billion bits? What would be its equivalent if it was written down in an ordinary printed book in modern human language? Twenty billion bits are the equivalent of about three billion letters. If there are approximately six letters in an average word, the information content of a human chromosome corresponds to about 500 million words. If there are about 300 words on an ordinary page of printed type, this corresponds to about two million pages. If a typical book contains five hundred such pages, the information content of a single human chromosome corresponds to some 4,000 volumes. It is clear then that the chromosome contains an enormous library of information. It is equally clear that so rich a library is required to specify so exquisitely constructed and intricately functioning object as a human being.”
The complexity of what science has to look at is staggering! When you factor in the complexity of the universe, when you look at it in micro terms of how small we are getting in terms of our understanding of the nature of reality, and in macro terms of the expanding universe and how great and majestic and beyond comprehension the world is, you realize that a scientist must, by definition, have to have some degree of humility. How could you not? How could you possibly look at the world that has been created, and not be in some degree of awe?
Likewise, I believe the theologian needs to be humbled. Theologians have not been humble. Often, we have been as dogmatic, hard, callous and assertive in our opinions as some of the scientists that we call into question. I do, however, enjoy the story about John Haldon, the scientist, who once suggested to Monsignor Ronald Knox that in a universe containing millions of planets, it was inevitable that life would appear by chance on one of them. This was the argument he made. I like the response of Knox. “Sir,” he said, “if Scotland Yard found a body in your Saratoga trunk, would you tell them there are millions of trunks in the world, and surely one of them must contain a body? I think they would still want to know who put it there.”
Theology talks about who put it there. One of the great dangers that we have as theologians is wanting always to justify the existence of God. We seem to feel that we have to come to the defence of our creed that God created the world. But when we do so, we often adopt a haughty attitude that tries to look at nature and figure out grace. In other words, we have to see an intelligent design in creation to believe in God. But, is that necessarily so? Does our confession that God created the world need to be proved by looking at nature in order to justify grace? By no means! The Bible at no point seeks to give a definitive scientific understanding of the nature of the origins of the world; it simply talks about the fact that God was the Creator. It is a statement of faith, but a statement of faith that should humble those who make it.
There is also another challenge. It is that Christians and people of faith say, “God created,” which I believe is true. But often, we just leave it at that. Creation becomes a very static thing. Almost anyone could make a claim like that: God created the world. Or, you could make the opposite claim: God did not create the world. It becomes a static argument about a moment frozen in time. I would like to suggest to you that the truly humble reading of the scriptures tells us far more about God than simply that God created us. Scripture tells us that God not only created, but that God is still creating, which is part of the creed of the United Church.
If you look at the biblical creation story, there is so much to substantiate the presence and the power of the living God working in creation. Take, for example, a passage in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1. In it, it says that God created the world and the animals, but then God also created the flowers and the grass, and through creating the grass, the animals were able to be fed. In other words, in the very doctrine of creation is this sense that God continues to not only create, but to plan for the perpetuation of the species and the perpetuation of life.
Biblically, then, God is seen not only to have created and found that it was good, but to have created in order that the life that he created would be sustained. We don't just say “God created,” we say “God created and God sustains.” Throughout the scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, there is this notion of God being continuously involved in creation. Why then, when we see things evolving and changing, do some Christians and people of faith dig in their heels, and get angry with the notion that things evolve and change, as though God is no longer involved in the world?
Now, my friends, this really became evident to me a few days ago when I was preparing for the Blessing of the Pets ceremony. You missed a treat earlier this morning! This place was full of animals - and their owners! I had my Cocker spaniels here. I have learned that the American cocker spaniel has only been recognized as a breed since 1880, with a dog named Oboe II. Oboe II was a very suave and dainty gun dog, bred to chase woodcocks. In other words, 200 years ago, American cocker spaniels, as a breed, did not exist. Thus, there was a change. A new breed came into being. There was an evolution. There was a mutation. Things have not been static.
Christians, people of faith, understand that the world is not static, and that God is not static. God has maintained and preserved the earth, and the changes that are taking place in the earth, I believe, are still in the hands of God. Why is it that we dig in our heels and simply want to affirm that God created, rather than be humble enough to say that God not only created, but God sustains. How much more to say that God not only sustains, but also that God cares? Our reader read one of the most touching passages in the Bible. Jesus tells the people not to worry, and says, “Why worry? See how the lilies of the field grow? They do not labour or spin, yet I tell you not Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. If that is how God [and listen to his language] clothed the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you? Oh, you of little faith! So, do not worry and say, ”˜What shall I eat?'”
In other words, we not only say, “God created,” we not only say “God sustains,” we also say “God cares.” You see, my friends, scientists can tell us so much, but they cannot tell us that God cares. They can't do that. Science may show that things evolve, that there is a nurturing pattern to the relationship that exists between beings and animals and species, but they cannot say that there is a caring presence for the earth. I believe there is. I believe this as a powerful statement. My friends, I do not need to understand the nature of the universe to understand that. I look rather to the word of God, the message of grace, the revelation of Scripture that tells me that. Then, I look at nature in a different way. I do not look at it mechanistically. I do not look at it objectively from a detached point of view. I look at it subjectively through the eyes of faith and the God who cares. I think we would spend our energies wisely if we were to say to the world, “Look at the lilies of the fields, but more than that, look how God cares!”
There is one last thing that the Bible tells us that we need to humble ourselves about. That is that God, in glory, came into this creation in the form of his Son. How do we know that this universe is in God's hands? We know it is in God's hands because God came into it in his Son. In coming in his Son, he did something profound. He told us not only that the Father had created the world, and not only that the Father loves the world and cares for its creatures, but also that there is a purpose to the world. When the world is broken, when the world suffers, when nature groans, to use Paul's phrase in Romans, when we see the chasm that exists in the natural order and in its brokenness, we understand and we declare that there is a purpose for this creation, that there is an end to this creation, and that the purpose and the end of creation is to glorify God who made it.
No amount of investigation into the natural order can tell you where it is going. Faith is the only thing that can tell you where it is going. Where it is going is to God. The great Wolfhart Pannenberg, who wrote the foreword to the book that I edited on the Trinity, said this: “Creation is an act of God's in eternity” - and it is to eternity that creation is ultimately moving. That tells me something profound. That tells me that everything in creation has value; that everything has a purpose; that everything of the created order matters; that the earth God made is blessed and is a blessing; and that the nature of life is so precious, not because I can look at it, dissect it, break it down or understand its origins, but because I have been told by the Word of God that it is His.
My friends, why then this entrenched debate between religion and science? Science has so much to tell us in humility of the mystery and complexity of this world. Faith has so much to say about its purpose, its reason and its destiny, which we see through the eyes of the Son of God. Amen.
This is a verbatim transcription of the original sermon.