Could God use us, as He did John Muir?

If the history of science has taught us anything, it should be the shortsightedness of believing that what we see is all there is.

  - Lisa Randall, "How to See the Invisible" Discover Magazine

Whenever I come across a line like this in a science journal or magazine, I catch my breath. Is this the one? Will this author dare to suggest that there might be other forms of reality beyond the merely material?

So far - this article included - the answer is, No. Lisa Randall wants to suggest other forms of material existence in the three approaches to identifying dark matter which she reviews in her very fine article.

But if we end up identifying dark matter as just a different form of matter, would that not be another instance of "believing that what we see is all there is"? Is this all the history of science has taught us? That matter is the only reality?

I don't pretend to know whether or not dark matter is just another form of matter. Dark matter may well be a different form of matter, and scientists will perhaps one day to be able to weigh, measure, and manipulate it just like any other kind of matter.

But even if that is the case, discovering dark matter to be matter will not remove the possibility of other kinds of reality besides "what we see". The Scriptures testify to the existence of spiritual realities, One of which - God - is sufficiently large and powerful to have created everything that is, to sustain and uphold it, and to contain it within - but separate from - Himself.

Would we make more headway in scientific investigation if we embraced this idea? Or at least, allowed it in the discussion? After all, the first scientific thinkers all held to this view, and it impelled them forward in their observations, research, and studies. Why should that be any different today?

And who are secular scientists to say such realities do not exist? They can't determine that by the methods of science. How can they be so sure?

We need to encourage our brothers and sisters who are working in the sciences and teaching them to others, not to hold back on the spiritual realities they know to be true. The more we who understand that, yes, Lisa, there is more to know than "what we see", make our case for the spiritual realities that affect every one of us, the more others are likely to consider that such a view just might be so.

So visit our website and engage the conversations there about how Christians can help to bring more light into the work of science. It's a challenge each one of us needs to take up, right where we are, every day.

T. M. Moore

Senior Theologian and Historian

What is man, anyway?

Science is the key to knowledge and prosperity and happiness.

Our solar system is like an air bubble in a pond.

The things of creation and the worldviews of men come and go.

In the household of faith we are all teachers of one another.

If we're not working at this every day, why not?

Is the world beginning to seek out more transcendent truths and realities?

...the concept of 'nature' is a socially mediated notion, not an objective entity in its own right.

  - Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology 1: Nature

The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof...

  - Psalm 24:1

Dr. McGrath's assertion will, I suspect, surprise many readers. What does he mean, there's no such thing as objective "nature"? Has Dr. McGrath fallen under the spell of some exotic Eastern religion?

No, he's under the "spell" of Scripture. The idea that "nature" exists as purely objective reality - stuff out there, but without any intrinsic meaning or purpose - is strictly a modern, Enlightenment idea. We all know there's lots of stuff out there - rocks, trees, creatures, quarks, solar flares, and whatnot. But is it just stuff? Creatures with no identity or purpose, except as human beings are able to identify and define them?

Imagine going to an art museum, looking at the paintings there, studying a few closely and with appreciation, and then heading down to the cafe to talk about your observations with a friend. You begin assigning names to the paintings and offering explanations not only of what they mean but how they came to be here and what their relationships are to one another - and everything you say is nothing more than what suits your fancy or interest. Clearly, you have wrongly assumed that all the "stuff" in those galleries had just been there forever, waiting for you to come along and offer your view of what they were, where they'd come from, what they meant, and what we might do with them.

This is the way secular science treats the "stuff" of the cosmos, and it's part of the hubris of science that troubles me.

The earth - and the whole vast cosmos, for that matter - is the Lord's, and everything in it. He made it all (Ps. 24:2). He created and sustains all the processes, particles, protocols, and patterns of the cosmos (Heb. 1:3). He loves the cosmos which He created and sustains, and He sent His Son, in part, to set the cosmos back in order again as the creation of and witness to God which He intends it to be (Jn. 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Ps. 19:1-4).

The world is creation, not nature. And language like this matters. It may seem a small thing, a quibble, to insist - as I do - that "nature" is neither an accurate nor appropriate way to refer to the creation of our God, and that therefore Christians working in the sciences ought to make a point of speaking of the world in appropriate Biblical ways. But we will not make headway in bringing the glory of God to light through our work in the sciences if we don't even have the gumption to call things what they are in God's view.

Believers have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Let's not set that mind aside as we take up the work of science.

Or as we talk about the world God has made.

T. M. Moore

Senior Theologian and Historian