“Natural” and “Supernatural” are Modern Terms, Not Biblical Ones | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
1

People who reject evolution as a means by which God could have created humans often do so because they interpret Genesis 2:7 as an act of God which, by their definition, rules out or bypasses natural processes. They therefore conclude that, despite some genetic similarities with other animals, human beings could not have evolved from earlier life forms.

This line of reasoning assumes that if the Bible says God was acting, it rules out the possibility that his action was accomplished with what we call “natural” processes. I would propose that such a distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is foreign to the ancient perspective reflected in Genesis. Since we should consider these original intentions as reflecting the authority of God in the text, we cannot claim the Bible says something that makes no sense in the original context.

When people today claim that God’s creative action in Genesis 2 bypassed natural processes, they are assuming that the interests, language, and/or concepts of the ancient Israelite author support such a divide. Ancient Israelites, however, believed that God is always active in the world in numerous and often undetectable ways; they did not have the categories of “natural” and “supernatural.” The operations of the world that we consider regular and predictable and can be described in scientific ways would have been considered no less the works of God in the ancient world. They believed that when they planted a grain of wheat, wheat would grow. But God would be no less involved in that than if barley grew instead. In the same way, we cannot infer from Genesis whether God created humans naturally (capable of scientific description) or supernaturally (beyond the regular and predictable cause and effect processes) just because God is taking an active role. They believed God always took an active role. Since the Hebrew language does not have words that classify levels of causation the way we do today, the language of the Old Testament can’t be used to confirm or deny our way of classifying cause and effect as either natural or as being purely the result of divine action.

When the Old Testament describes God’s involvement in the world, it is not to specify a “supernatural” event as distinguished from the way things normally work or from an event that could be scientifically described. Generally its interests are to identify the events as “signs and wonders.” These stand as demonstrations of God’s power to deliver his people and of his covenantal love for them. At times the text also emphasizes that the God of Israel, not another god, is in control of the events. Think of the plagues of Egypt. These demonstrated that God’s power was superior to the gods of Egypt. The Old Testament focuses on the fact that he could do what no other god could do. This does not at all imply a distinction between “supernatural” events (God bypassing scientifically describable processes) or “natural” events (God acting through natural processes).

God is certainly capable of bypassing normal causes, but it is not safe to infer that he did so just because the Old Testament reports that he acted. Only the logistics of the scenario could lead us to that conclusion. For example, in the New Testament when Jesus turned water into wine, he obviously bypassed natural processes. The wine undoubtedly had a similar chemical structure with “natural” wine but Jesus’ act must have bypassed the usual natural processes. Some insist we should also believe that God bypassed natural processes in the creation of Adam. We could do so if the text or the scenario made it necessary to do so. At the wedding in Cana there is clearly no time for the normal process to have taken place. As such, it is the scenario more than the language of the text that demands we understand that normal processes were bypassed. In Genesis 2 there is neither a distinction being drawn by the language nor a scenario that rules out a scientifically describable process for the creation of human beings.

Today, when we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action. Once we designate some acts as “special” or “supernatural” we imply that other events which can be explained by normal cause and effect are not the acts of God. This drifts toward deism (distancing God from the operations of the cosmos) by suggesting that God only acts some of the time. This kind of thinking is responsible at least in part for bringing about the divide between science and the Bible.

The biological origin of human beings was not a concern of the ancient Israelites or any of their neighbors. They did not have categories of causation to differentiate the level of God’s activity in making Adam from the level of his activity in making us. God made Adam; God made all of us. In the Hebrew language, the same verb can be used for both instances, and God is no less involved in one than in the other. Some may claim there is a distinction because we were conceived and born through a nine-month process, while Adam is described as being formed from the dust. Yet the Bible affirms that God is no less involved in each birth (Ps. 139:13). And before we could conclude that this is an intentional distinction of a different type of material origin for Adam than the rest of us had, we would have to determine whether the text is claiming to address Adam’s material origin.

Is the text claiming that Adam was formed from dust by the very hand of God, while the rest of us are born from a woman after a nine-month gestation period? Many assume this is the case. But such a view implies that the text asserts a supernatural theory of human origins for which there is no natural explanation or process involved. Again, the text cannot be making such a distinction, because the Israelites did not think in terms of these competing categories.

Alternatively, I suggest that just as Adam is introduced to us as one formed from dust, so we understand that we are all formed from dust, designed to be mortal and frail (Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-48). The text is not trying to tell us how Adam is different, but to tell us how we are all the same. In Genesis we don’t learn that Adam’s creation was supernatural while the rest of us are born through a natural process. We learn that humankind from the very beginning was created with mortal bodies but that God was going to provide an antidote. I address more of the details of this interpretation in my book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve.

If the Bible does not insist that God bypassed scientifically describable processes in the material creation of human beings (since its authors and its intended audience had no such categories), it should not be used to rule out scientific explanations for material human origins (such as evolution). Both the Bible and theology agree that God is pervasively involved in his world no matter what level of scientifically describable cause and effect we can detect. So it is not inconsistent with the biblical text to suggest that God created human beings over a long period of time through processes that operate according to recognizable cause and effect patterns. As such, evolutionary creationism would be a perfectly acceptable view for Christians who take both the Bible and science seriously. God’s activity is not limited to what scientifically describable cause and effect processes fail to explain; he is engaged in working through all processes.

At the same time, every Christian should affirm that humans are not merely the result of scientifically describable processes. God has made us ontologically distinct beings, regardless of the material processes involved. We aremore than dust; and we are more than any phylogenetic ancestor. Furthermore, this ontological uniqueness cannot be simplified to the imposition of a soul or to the assignment as God’s images. Unique human ontology can't be reduced to anthropological components because it concerns the fundamental nature of our being. We are more than what we are made of, and God is responsible for that.

When BioLogos promotes evolutionary creationism, there is no room for those who exploit science to defend a purposeless and meaningless view of humanity and the world. Evolutionary creationism does not call for minimal or occasional divine attention. It does not intend to remove God from involvement in creation. It does not replace God with science. Taking the Bible seriously means not imposing modern categories on it that can conceivably lead to a misunderstanding of its authoritative message. The Bible cannot be interpreted to specify categorical distinctions it never had, because it cannot be interpreted to say what it never said.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blog/natural-and-supernatural-are-modern-terms-not-biblical-ones
2

@JohnWalton is available to respond to thoughtful, on-topic comments and questions.

3

As ever I find Dr Walton’s core arguments to be both theologically and philosophically sound. It sounds here as if he speaks for BioLogos, if indeed not for “evolutionary creation” overall.

It would be good to clarify the implications of this piece, though. He writes:

When BioLogos promotes evolutionary creationism, there is no room for those who exploit science to defend a purposeless and meaningless view of humanity and the world. Evolutionary creationism does not call for minimal or occasional divine attention. It does not intend to remove God from involvement in creation. It does not replace God with science.

But for many years the science-faith discussion was dominated by theodical arguments based on the “autonomy of nature”, for example in the hands of John Haught, Howard Van Till, and to some extent John Polkinghorne. On the one hand these implied that God would be “coercive” to determine outcomes of “free” natural processes. On the other, it led to statements like “The God of love would not make…” (insert “pathogenic viruses”, “guinea worms”, “wisdom teeth” etc as appropriate).

John’s arguments would seem to make “God’s providence was not involved” statements just as theologically invalid as “God must have acted miraculously” statements, and confirm that Fundamentalism and “mere conservationism” are two sides of the same metaphysically inadequate coin.

Can we take it that BioLogos now distances itself from the “automous creation” position?

5

@Jon_Garvey Jon, you are consistent in your push for clarification of BioLogos beliefs. I think we’ve been consistent in referring you to our page that delineates these for full public inspection. We are just not the sort of organization that says everyone who associates with us must agree on every point of doctrine. So when John Walton writes something like this for us, it is completely legitimate to see him as speaking “from within” the BioLogos community. That is to say, he is articulating a position that is consistent with our perspective of origins (both scientifically and biblically). That does not, however, commit him to speaking “for” the BioLogos community as though his view is the only legitimate one we might ever recognize. We’re interested in pursuing truth (bullet point #3 of our Core Commitments). We believe that dialogue is an important component to that pursuit. So rather than shutting down dialogue by defining narrow parameters on a lot of points of doctrine, we’re more interested in mere Christianity and allowing people to explore the implications of it in light of what has been discovered about the created order. Yes, we have a fairly large tent, defined primarily by the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture, the imago dei, and contemporary science (again, What We Believe is the official list). So, your take-away should be: Walton has articulated a position that BioLogos accepts. I hope that gives you some confidence about us.

1 Like
6

It appears to me to be rationalization to suggest that because the Israelites did not think primarily in terms of natural or supernatural, that therefore any apparent supernatural act might not have been supernatural at all. Of course, God could have created Adam from dust in a “natural” way, ie. he put all the chemicals in place from the dust of the earth, caused all the reactions to form the genes which then formed cells and organs and limbs. Then, once the body was formed, he could have given it life… This would not be much different than evolution, except it would have been much quicker (or it could have taken weeks to happen) but still supernaturally natural. God could have simply speeded up the process by not permitting randomness in this case.

The real point is not whether it was supernatural or natural, nor is it about what God “could” have done. It is about what God actually did. The clincher for me is that it would have been so simple for the account to have said, “God took one of the animals and changed it into a man”. It’s a simple, short sentence, easy to understand, and just as valid as forming man from dust. If it was accurate. But it doesn’t say that. That makes me very reluctant to accept the rationalizations as presented.

7

Jim

I’ve very aware of the “views of the author do not necessarily reflect…” caveat, and consider it quite legitimate, especially since you often feature “occasional” writers.

So although John Walton is not a polemical writer, and closely associated with BioLogos, I could take it as personal position, with perhaps a challenge, when he suggests:

Once we designate some acts as “special” or “supernatural” we imply that other events which can be explained by normal cause and effect are not the acts of God. This drifts toward deism (distancing God from the operations of the cosmos) by suggesting that God only acts some of the time. This kind of thinking is responsible at least in part for bringing about the divide between science and the Bible.

But since the quote in my first post was taken from his concluding paragraph, one might be forgiven for suggesting he’s drawing some general boundaries around the evolutionary creation position rather than waving a flag for one interpretation. If, rather, he’s voicing just one legitimate opinion within EC, it seems he must be taken as meaning that “evolutionary creation need not call for minimal or occasional divine attention, though that too remains a legitimate option.”

A position that can embrace both the views that God must not be distanced from the operations of the cosmos, and that nature must be left autonomous in its operations is certainly a broad church.

8

@johnZ It also would have been very simple for the account to say, “Joshua commanded the earth to stop rotating on its axis.” Right? Walton’s point is that there is a cultural context to the text and we must address that.

9

I think that the following sentence needs more warrants:

Again, the text cannot be making such a distinction, because the Israelites did not think in terms of these competing categories.

The Genesis text makes explicit mention of the material creation of Adam as a special act of God separate from the creation of others. Likewise, Eve’s material creation by God, from the parts of man, is an explicit topic of discussion in the text. Even some of the concluding statements in Genesis point to a material concern - God is the father of Adam, comparatively, Eve (and her associated womb) is the mother of all the living. Seth, as a result, is made in Adam’s image (who was, in turn, made in the image of God). These sort of continual distinctions in the early Genesis narrative seem to be warrants for seeing Adam’s creation as a special material “sign and wonder” from God.

I concede on some level that the distinction between natural and supernatural is a modern category, and I therefore agree that the Israelites would have seen God as present in all creation. But in this case the material origin of Adam and Eve, as separate from subsequent human birth, seems to be a point of focus. Adam and Eve were “special”.

Can you further explain why the text “cannot” be making this distinction and provide more warrants for the Israelite’s not thinking “in terms of these competing categories”?

Thanks

10

@JohnZ I had a similar reaction as JStump’s above (only with a lot more words). :smile:

… Or it would also have been simple for the text to say “the earth moves” rather than “the earth cannot be moved” (which is what it really does say.) Given that we all here now accept that the earth does move, it would seem that God must be making some larger, other point and using a commonly accepted (even if mistaken) aphorism of the time as a disposable delivery vehicle for deeper understanding. That is accommodation.

No doubt, if we could travel back in time and speak with the Psalmist, he would passionately defend it as a true aphorism, and reply back to us: “Are you daft, man? Of course the earth doesn’t move –everybody knows that –just look around you!” (in appropriate Hebrew dialect of course!) But his acceptance (and the inspired author’s consequent use) of the knowledge of the day does not necessitate that said knowledge must then become venerated to infallible wisdom by later generations who know better on those particulars. So we disentangle the message from the presuppositional particulars, and that may take some scholarly work in some cases. Not that only scholars have access to a salvific message; far from it; but those who have, through modern scientific mindsets, erected stumbling blocks for themselves and others, it should be expected that scholarly tools are available to them for dismantling those stumbling blocks.

11

@bprjam

You assume that the text makes explicit mention of the material creation of Adam and Eve. That is exactly the point that I contest in Lost World of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, God being someone’s father is not a material distinction since God is also the father of David’s descendant who will sin (2 Sam 7). I am not denying that the creation of Adam and Eve is a work of God—I am suggesting that it is no more or less a work of God than his creation of any of us. The warrant for this is that the same Hebrew verb is used for them as for us and that we are all from dust, according to the Psalmist (103:14) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:48). We are likewise all in the image of God, so Adam is not distinct from the rest of us. I agree that Adam and Eve were “special” but not in terms of their material origins as I discussed at length in my book.

1 Like
12

James, I do not agree that your example is similar. Obviously, to stop rotating on axis is not something easily perceived. Even today, we do not say that we move (at 1040 mph) to meet the sun. We say that the sun rises, even though we know the scientific explanation is earth’s rotation. But to say that God created Adam from an animal, or that he created Adam from dust, are both in the same unnatural and unreal context. Neither have ever been observed, and it would be easier to understand creating life from life, rather than life from un-life (dirt).

Merv, even though the earth moves, (as the sun does not rise), yet the earth is firm… it remains in orbit, it is consistent in rotation, it remains at a distance from the sun. The earth is not moving around in some unpredictable fashion which would cause us instability… that is the point of the passage. The surface of the earth is something we can stand on, it does not bounce violently around… except in an earthquake, or a volcano. The discovery of globes motion does not falsify the point of the earth itself being firm.

The passage that says that man came from dust, and to dust he will return, is a type of syllogism that follows from the proposition that all the elements that make up man can be found in the dust. We also know that from the fact that man lives on what grows from dirt, and so it follows that these elements are the same. But in the Genesis account, the process of forming by God, and breathing life into something not alive, is quite different from merely making a generic statement about what human beings are constituted from. It is also a quite different account than the creation of the other life, which did not give this particular aspect, even though they too also consist of the same elements, and were also formed from the ground. Therefore it is logical to assume that the process was somewhat different, and that the significance is different. The text explicity describes the material creation of both Adam and Eve, and specifically with different mechanisms, one from dust, the other from rib.

13

Do you agree, then, John, that you have a more accurate understanding of the mechanics of the situation than the original writers of those verses did? Because I’m reasonably certain the Psalmist who wrote: …“You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken” did not have in mind that really the whole earth does move – or parts of it shake in some situations, but it makes a great figure of speech …so use it anyway.

You readily “rescue the text” towards modern understandings by reducing its scope to the immediate experience of the writer, but there would have been plenty of faithful readers up to and past Galileo’s time that would have chastised you for compromising with modern science on an issue to which the Bible speaks [to them] quite clearly and understandably in its plain reading.

14

Merv said

“Given that we all here now accept that the earth does move, it would
seem that God must be making some larger, other point and using a
commonly accepted (even if mistaken) aphorism of the time as a
disposable delivery vehicle for deeper understanding.”

There is of course a more obvious alternative, that this story is entirely written by humans of a certain culture, with little or no help from an omniscient being. Taken together with the numerous other such statements in the Bible, this is the only explanation that really holds up, EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD.

15

I have a more accurate understanding of the solar system than the original hearers of those verses did… I’m quite sure God in his inspiration, knew exactly how the planets moved. I’m quite sure also that people in those days likely experienced or knew of earthquakes, and so had experienced the earth shaking, or volcanoes erupting. They likely knew about sinkholes, and quicksand too. Think of the earth swallowing up the men who were complaining against Moses. The writing was referring to the general larger picture, not to the details (which they already knew). So written in their context, even they could have argued that the statement was technically false. So how did they rescue the text in their context?

I do not rescue the text by reducing its scope to the immediate writer, rather I say that even in our own context it makes sense in our everyday world and life, based on our own present day experience, in the same way that it made sense to the people of David’s time.

Is this analogous to Genesis? I don’t think so. The difference is that the more we embed evolution in our minds, the less likely it is that we will say that man is created from dust. Instead we talk about the chimp in the zoo being our daddy, and of course this statement is also not scientific, because of the common ancestor thing, but see how it changes the language, while the other instances do not change the language. We still say the sun rises and sets. We still say we like to plant our feet on solid ground.

There is a big difference between genesis 1, and all the supposed analogous passages that are supposed to indicate a problem with understanding the text. The analogies just don’t work.

16

Hmmm, perhaps you’re right, but I’d still like to push a bit. I might add that I’m a big fan of your Genesis commentary in the NIVAC series, was an early reader and promoter (within my small circle of influence) of your “The Lost World of Genesis One”, and I really like the Bible Backgrounds commentary on Genesis you put together. I point all this out to say that I don’t want to come off as antagonistic to your project. Rather, I’m trying to put the content of this post into context; I have some mental gaps with what I’m reading.

Perhaps I was too flippant with the word “material” in my original comment. Let me step back a bit. Unlike the Gen 1 creation narrative in which, at best, vaguely named pre-existing material was ordered (or “functionalized”) into the existing creation, the ordering of Adam and Eve in Gen 2 was somewhat different. The material from which Adam was made is specifically named, as well as infusion of the “breath of God” (a material?), the origin of the animals (from the ground), the garden (from the soil), and even Eve (from Adam’s flesh). All of this mention of “stuff” seems to be in contrast with Genesis 1. The mention of material does not have to mean that material creation is the “point” of the story - I agree with your assessment that the point of the story is to tell us we are all the same - but the dust that becomes a living being seems to indicate a kind of special sign and wonder that is more akin to the stone jars of water that became wine, and the staff that became a serpent, or even of the sea that became dry land than is afforded by the creation narrative in Genesis 1. The tableau of Genesis 2, especially in contrast to Genesis 1, seems to invite an interpretation that bypasses natural processes in order to root our ontology in a specific (if not special) act of God’s.

Is this contrast something you address in the book, or do you handle it in a different way?

17

@johnZ

So how did they rescue the text in their context?

I do not rescue the text by reducing its scope to the immediate writer, rather I say that even in our own context it makes sense in our everyday world and life, based on our own present day experience, in the same way that it made sense to the people of David’s time.

I agree with you that the original hearers wouldn’t have had a need to rescue anything, because they would have had confidence that disturbances and cataclysms aside, the earth basically does not move (hence the “firm foundations”). So you seem willing to agree that the everyday experience of that was enough for them then, and for us now. Do you also concede, then, that any modern scientific perspective that we want to force onto some passages (such as … “but the earth does move!”) can be correct in its own modern context and yet also be entirely irrelevant to (and entirely compatible with) the passage?

18

@bprjam In dealing with Adam and Eve I do not use the material/functional distinction that was the premise of my work in Genesis 1. Rather I propose that the forming accounts of Adam and Eve treat them as archetypes. The “materials” referred to are part of an archetypal representation in that they pertain to all of us. This is the common use of named ingredients in ancient Near Eastern accounts of human origins as well. The book will give more details and fill in the gaps. Note that in your repeated use of “seems” you demonstrate your dependence on how the text reads most easily to you as a person situated in your particular culture and your particular theological tradition.

19

Thank you for the interaction. I’ll have to add the book to my reading list.

As far as my use of “seems”, it’s an artifact of my postmodern paradigm. I’m uncomfortable saying most things with global certainty. Conclusions are usually subjective, since warrants are usually more or less convincing to me (or anyone, really). I believe that’s why the Biologos organization even exists, since the warrants for evolutionary creation (which are convincing to me) are not convincing to everyone. Advocation for the warrants (both Biblical and scientific) must be made until the conclusions seem convincing to others as well. But I digress. Thanks again for the post, and interacting with me on this very important topic.

1 Like
20

Merv. I do not concede that “any” perspective (scientific or not) that we want to force onto some passages can be correct. In this case, even though the earth has a circuit, it is still firm and solid, and does not move when you jump up and down on it. In the case of Genesis one and two, where two is an explanation in more detail of parts of chapter one, some different explanations may be possible or compatible, but not if they contradict the basic essence of Genesis one and two. We could argue about length of days, as the day-age people do, but that also has problems. We could argue that the universe, and the substance of the earth was created in a more indefinite period of time before the first day, but evolution itself as a process does not allow for God creating man from dust, and does not jive with the impact of man’s disobedience to God. Nor can we argue that the tale of dust to man is easier to understand in the ancient context (or in the present context) than the tale of animal to man, or microbes to mice. (Re-incarnation theory gives evidence of that.)

In addition, the assumption of uniformity is just an assumption. There is no inherent reason why mutation rates should stay constant, or why mountains should rise at a constant rate, or why sediment should be laid down slowly at the rates we see today, or why ice layers should form exactly at the rate and methods that we observe today, or that volcanoes should erupt at the general rates we observe today. We are constantly adjusting rates (CO2 concentrations), volcanic ash impacts, and we already know that various radiometric dating methods do not match each other, ie. helium zircons, C14 in millions of year old rock (not intrusions), but the ideology of evolution is just as strong as the ideology of YEC, so such possibilities are simply dismissed out of hand. Conclusions are drawn long before the data is available, and with often minimal (not statistically representative) data. (The pig’s tooth being transformed into an entire hominid species comes to mind.) As a theory, it is not trustworthy because of the ideology behind it. Many scientists could not even conceive of trying to deal with biology without it.

The theory of evolution is created to be the basis for understanding and interpreting everything, so everything is adjusted to it, and it is revised to adjust to itself. It is an ideology that cannot be falsified… it is merely adjusted. If this is fair for evolution, then it is fair for any alternate theories as well.

Nor am I convinced that the dichotomy between “natural causes” and “un-natural causes” is legitimate. From an evolutionary perspective, all the unnatural things that humans do are still very natural. And from a theological perspective, all the the miraculous things that God does, are very natural to him. For us to say that this or that can’t happen, is to presume a lot. To ask whether it did happen or not, is legitimate.

21

JohnZ wrote:

Merv. I do not concede that “any” perspective (scientific or not) that we want to force onto some passages can be correct.

“Force onto” was a poor choice of words on my part, and I agree (if indeed you do also) that we shouldn’t be force fitting anything into Scripture that doesn’t belong or isn’t already found there. In fact, I think that is an important point that Dr. Walton has been driving home here.

“Simultaneously hold” or “not be incompatible with” would have been better phrases I could have chosen regarding how we hold both theological assertions about God’s faithfulness being like a firm foundation, alongside scientific notions about a moving earth. They do not interfere with each other at all.