Book Review: Knowing Creation: Perspectives from Theology, Philosophy, and Science Edited by Andrew B. Torrance and Thomas H. McCall

Introduction 

There is no doubt that those active in defending the Christian faith will encounter questions regarding how to understand the creation narrative in light of modern science. The effective apologist, therefore, must have a holistic understanding of scriptural, theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific themes dominating the creation dialogue. In their edited volume, Knowing Creation: Perspectives from Theology, Philosophy, and Science, Andrew B. Torrance and Thomas H. McCall seek to provide just that (Knowing Creation is the first volume of a two-volume set. Volume 2 is entitled Christ and the Created Order and will be reviewed separately).

Sixteen individual essays comprise this volume, each providing a look into one dimension of a holistic picture of the natural world as the creation of God. The book itself is broken down into four sections – Theological, Biblical and Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific – and as a result this review will follow suit. It should first be noted, however, that while each essay may stand alone, the collection is united around the shared goal of providing a constructive discussion of nature as creation.

Theological Perspectives

The first essay, provided by Simon Oliver, explores the understanding of creation as a gift from God. Creation, however, is a gift like no other since God not only establishes the gift of creation itself, but also the recipients of the gift: His creatures. God lacks nothing, and therefore the act of creation is the ultimate act of selflessness, the ultimate gift. Once understood, this concept of creation as the ultimate gift has profound ethical implications; not only should we care for one another, but we should care for the whole of creation as well.

In chapter 2, Christoph Schwöbel considers the metaphor of God speaking creation into being, highlighting how all of creation functions as a conversation both initiated by God and carried out with God. Inspired heavily by Martin Luther’s reflections, Schwöbel demonstrates that the fact of creation cannot be divorced from the meaning of creation, and therefore theology must come alongside science and provide understanding of the relational aspect of creation, the continual conversation with God.

It is frequently asked whether a scientist can be a religions believer. In chapter 3, Randall C. Zachman turns that question on its head and instead addresses why every believer should pursue, to the extent that they can, becoming a scientist. In another twist, Zachman responds by painting John Calvin as the prime advocate of the sciences. Through references to Calvin’s original commentary, the arts and sciences are shown to be revealed gifts of God, revealed for our benefit, and therefore we have an obligation to study them.

Wrapping up the first section, Andrew Torrance addresses two major obstacles that stand in the way of knowing God’s creation: methodological naturalism and methodological atheism. Methodological naturalism presupposes that all truths in the universe can be obtained through empirical measurements and appeals to natural phenomena. Methodological atheism, in contrast, goes the extra step of assuming, for the sake of science, that God does not actually exist. After discussing reasons for and against these approaches, both are found wanting. Ultimately, by accepting either one, the scientist forfeits the ability to know the physical world as God’s creation.

Biblical and Historical Perspectives

In chapter 5, John Walton begins by stating his main presupposition: in order to understand the origin story of Genesis, we must read the text from within the worldview in which it was produced. Specifically, insofar as the Israelites were concerned, there was no dividing line between the natural and the supernatural. Instead, God was involved with everything in some way. In other words, the fact that God did something is not to be read as a statement of how God did it. Instead, the Israelites were more interested in the roles and functions established by the creative acts of God. It is against this background that Walton ultimately argues that the teaching of the creation narrative has nothing to fear from evolutionary biology.

Francis Watson seeks in chapter 6 to answer the question of how Genesis became a problem in the first place. His answer: we ignored the possibility of perspective. For example, when we talk about “moonlight”, we are speaking from a perspective that is incompatible with the scientific model (since the moon itself merely reflects sunlight and thus “moonlight” doesn’t exist) yet is nevertheless equally as true within its own context. Similarly, we can accept claims in scripture and their incompatible scientific paradigms as equally true from within their own perspectives. This is how Watson suggests we understand Genesis in light of Darwin.

In chapter 7, William P. Brown explores the book of Job as approached from the field of astrobiology, a multidisciplinary field that studies the past, present, and future of life throughout the universe. When God responds in the final chapters of Job, He presents a panoramic view of creation that is far too wondrous for mankind to comprehend. In other words, God’s creation is far more than we can imagine. Nevertheless, we are part of that same creation, and the more we know creation, the more alien our knowledge becomes.

Susan Grove Eastman argues in chapter 8 that our entire ability to relate to one another at all is first grounded in the fact that God decided to know us. Throughout the chapter, Eastman discusses the writings of Paul, and ultimately demonstrates that Paul viewed human interrelationships, that is the knowledge between humans, as being wholly caused by and sustained by the engagement with God’s love.

Philosophical Perspectives

Beginning the philosophical discourse in chapter 9, Marilyn McCord Adams draws a distinction between knowing creation and knowing creation as creation. Those who merely know creation know the facts, devoid of meaning and value. It is only when creation is known as creation that we can see the personal aspect of this world and the underlying purpose behind our scientific discoveries.

In chapter 10, Peter van Inwagen takes up the task of expressing just how vast God’s creation is, and by comparison, how tiny we are. All of creation, however, is infinitely less than God. It is through this understanding of how minuscule human kind is compared to God that we come to realize our essential dependence on Him. Furthermore, there is nothing about us that could compel God toward us, and therefore our reflection on creation reveals that we are loved by God purely because of who He is.

C. Stephen Evans provides a two-fold argument in chapter 11. First, God has instilled creation with signs that point back to Him, thus making it possible for human beings as his creatures to know Him. Second, God specifically created us with the ability to recognize these signs and obtain knowledge of God as a result. Furthermore, some have even gone so far as to identify this ability as a hardwired cognitive faculty, the efficacy of which remains in tact even on a Darwinian model of human origins.

In chapter 12, Robert Koons draws a connection between the Aristotelian ideas of formal and final causation and the modern discoveries of quantum physics, ultimately revealing the teleology behind creation. This is not a teleology whereby God deterministically organizes creation, but instead one in which God instills His creation with intrinsic causal propensities that ultimately reveal His nature.

Scientific Perspectives

Carrying on with this Aristotelian theme, William Simpson discusses the notion of hylomorphism throughout the history of scientific thought. Hylomorphism concerns matter and form combining to create physical objects. In contrast, some have tried to develop ontologies in which all of reality is either reduced to or has emerged from matter alone. In response, Simpson reconstructs the hylomorphic view, arguing that both matter and form are needed in order to explain substances with causal power.

In chapter 14, Denis Alexander tackles the question of God’s providence in light of evolution. God’s nature, it is argued, is made known in part through the regularity of created nature, a regularity which is ultimately sustained by God. When evolution is considered, it must therefore be understood as part of a matrix of understanding which is grounded in God’s providence. Thus, evolution makes creation neither random nor indeterminate.

In chapter 15, Mark Harris explores the scriptural passages that refer to physical creation worshipping God in order to fully understand how the physical world praises God. Harris provides four nonexclusive solutions ranging from mere metaphorical representations of human worship to matter-of-fact statements about the natural function of creation. Without giving a concrete answer, he provides ten theses to consider when constructing theology of nature. Without stating them all, the underlying point is that a true theology of nature emphasizes the relationship between God and nature independent of any human involvement.

Closing out the book, Tom McLeish seeks to develop a true theology of science. This is in contrast to those who wish to reconcile theology and science. Rather than separating science and theology and seeking to relate them, McLeish instead argues that the two must be understood as “of one another.” Through an exploration of the book of Job, a broken relationship between mankind and nature is exposed, and in the context of that relationship, science then becomes the theological task of working with God to mend the broken relationship between mankind and nature.

In Conclusion

At this point, some final comments are warranted. First, it should be noted that Knowing Creation covers a wide rage of topics, and therefore doesn’t exhaustively cover any single one. Second, as a collection of essays, it is easy to lose sight of the cohesive theme and instead view each chapter as a disjointed argument. Third, the essays also vary in difficulty level. Nevertheless, this volume provides an insightful and stimulating exploration of what it means to truly know God’s creation.