I\u2019ve disliked the Intelligent Design concept since I first heard about it when Behe’s book came out. Frankly, to me it seems to be another example of the disreputable idea theologians have referred to as \u201cthe God of the gaps\u201d theology. That is, there has been a tendency among many Christians to look at things that they don\u2019t understand, then jump up and down with glee, \u201csee, that proves it: there is a God. God did it.\u201d Unfortunately, as our understanding of the universe advances, this \u201cGod\u201d will continue to shrink until he becomes entirely unnecessary (and this, I suspect, is why so many Christians and members of many other faiths fear science: they know that this \u201cGod\u201d is likely to be destroyed by it, and that\u2019s the only \u201cGod\u201d they have). ID has simply repackaged this foolishness and given it a new name. It reminds me of GTE renaming itself Verizon: it\u2019s still the same bad phone company.<\/p>\n
I recently read someone who wrote, in thinking about God, that \u201csince natural laws are His, presumably He can violate them any time He feels like it.\u201d This reflects a widespread assumption regarding omnipotence which I don\u2019t think is correct.<\/p>\n
I do not think it is accurate to say that omnipotence means God can do just anything at all. I also disagree, therefore, that \u201cmiracle\u201d in any way is a violation of natural law. Hume\u2019s comments on miracle are devastating to that traditional concept of miracle, but only assuming this widely accepted definition of miracle is accurate. At least since the late nineteenth century, most theologians who have thought about the issue have attacked Hume\u2019s conclusions by dismantling this key presupposition (one that most people, unfortunately, still believe) that \u201cmiracle\u201d means \u201cviolation of natural law.\u201d A more precise definition is that a miracle is a sign, or an intervention by God, by which he hopes to get the viewer\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n
Most people would find it difficult to commit murder. Their morality constrains their behavior. Most would argue that God is moral and thus is unable to violate his moral precepts, especially given the additional assumption that God is perfect. What if we now also assume that the laws of nature are as much a part of who God is as the moral laws are? What if we modify the definition of omnipotence to then mean that God is capable of doing anything that is consistent with his nature? God is constrained, I would argue, by his own nature and can do nothing in violation of it; nor do I think that he can do anything that is logically absurd. God can no more make 2 and 2 be 5 than I can.<\/p>\n
God then, might no more be able to violate natural law than he is able to violate his moral law. Certainly he does spectacular things, but do those spectacular things require violation of natural law? An airplane would be mighty spectacular to a person living in the middle ages, as would flights to the moon or computers. But none of those spectacular things are violations of natural laws. We simply know the natural laws well and can manipulate them in very creative ways. God, to put it oddly, perhaps, is then simply more technologically advanced than we are. And thus, in a universe where God is like this, science then would be compatible with the nature of reality. <\/p>\n
I would expect that we could learn in detail how the universe functions down to the smallest level; I thus am content with evolutionary theory and modern science, though I remain a theist who believes that God is intimately involved with his universe, in that his manipulations are no more intrusive or problematic than the manipulations of his creative creatures and differ from them perhaps in degree, but not kind. I would also point out that God made us free, and thus it is always going to be possible for us to explain Him away, precisely because we would not be free otherwise. How free are you when you are aware that your boss is watching your every move? God didn\u2019t want us to live that way, either.<\/p>\n
I suspect that the moral laws and natural laws are both a reflection of God\u2019s fundamental nature and that he cannot be other than who he is. For instance, the fundamental forces (weak force, strong force, gravity, electromagnetism) must exist in a certain relationship with one another\u2014to several decimal places–in order to have a universe capable of supporting life as we know it. We can logically posit universes where the forces are different than in our universe, but such universes would be very uncomfortable for us and incompatible with our existence. God is constrained by 2 and 2 always having to equal four. Likewise, \u201cthou shalt not murder\u201d is probably a necessary constraint on a properly functioning universe, too; anything else would be uncomfortable. While God could have done and could do anything, I believe he is constrained by who he is, just as my behavior is constrained by who I am (such as, what are the odds that I will voluntarily drive on the wrong side of the street, even though the only thing stopping me is a double yellow line painted on the asphalt; hardly a big physical barrier).<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-content\/plugins\/send-to-kindle\/media\/white-15.png\")
Send to Kindle<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I\u2019ve disliked the Intelligent Design concept since I first heard about it when Behe’s book came out. Frankly, to me it seems to be another example of the disreputable idea theologians have referred to as \u201cthe God of the gaps\u201d … Continue reading