God and Nature 2026 #2
|
|
By Buddy Spaulding
Introduction
When Christians discuss contentious issues in theology and science, there sometimes seem to be invisible barriers that keep new ideas from gaining any traction. It is almost as if they are required to pick one of the positions developed by the great theologians or scientists of the past and defend it to the bitter end. Here are two examples where Christian scholars have gone up against such barriers:
In his book Crisis In Evangelical Scholarship: A New Look at the Second Coming of Christ, Stan Moody examines all the major strains of thinking on the Second Coming (Parousia in Greek): the already-present-Kingdom position, the preterist position stating that the Parousia has already happened, and the futurist position of a Kingdom yet to come. Seeing problems with all three, Dr. Moody suggests that probably all are as much incorrect as they are correct—but probably all three have some useful insights, and those insights should be extracted from each school of thought. Perhaps these could be used to build a better theology on the Second Coming.
Introduction
When Christians discuss contentious issues in theology and science, there sometimes seem to be invisible barriers that keep new ideas from gaining any traction. It is almost as if they are required to pick one of the positions developed by the great theologians or scientists of the past and defend it to the bitter end. Here are two examples where Christian scholars have gone up against such barriers:
In his book Crisis In Evangelical Scholarship: A New Look at the Second Coming of Christ, Stan Moody examines all the major strains of thinking on the Second Coming (Parousia in Greek): the already-present-Kingdom position, the preterist position stating that the Parousia has already happened, and the futurist position of a Kingdom yet to come. Seeing problems with all three, Dr. Moody suggests that probably all are as much incorrect as they are correct—but probably all three have some useful insights, and those insights should be extracted from each school of thought. Perhaps these could be used to build a better theology on the Second Coming.
...there is a limit to certainty, and [...] at some point mystery or at least tension should be embraced. |
In his book Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God, Sy Garte describes the incredible complexity found via research in the well-established field of biological evolution, as well as in the poorly understood (putting it mildly) field of abiogenesis. Although ongoing research is interesting, Garte points out that understanding how abiogenesis has occurred remains an extremely difficult problem, perhaps an unsolvable one. He goes on to state that given what we know at this time, “Life should not exist” (1). But Garte notes a different problem: even in the much better understood field of evolutionary biology, our current scientific methodology has been unable to explain why individual cells act with what appears to be agency, cognition, and purpose. Yet, apparently, they do! (2)
What both men seem to be suggesting is that we are at a roadblock in the respective fields of study, given the current paradigms in currency. New paradigms are needed. Moody deals with a situation where three general schools of thought keep on thinking along predetermined lines governed by theological and interpretive (of Scripture) models. Defense of one’s position may have its place, but the price paid is twofold: 1) the schools of thought do not utilize the better ideas of other schools; 2) digging deeper in the same general location unearths more troublesome rocks that must be dealt with or ignored.
Sy Garte is dealing with a scientific problem, while Stan Moody tackles a theological conundrum. What is the link?
The Problem of the Established Paradigm
Both are suggesting the need for new paradigms. What prevents a more widespread search for a better paradigm? Both authors see the problem arising from the desire to protect the prevailing methods.
This writer cannot speak from experience to protective attitudes in more moderate and liberal strains of Christianity but is very familiar with such attitudes in conservative American Protestantism. Churches, institutions such as colleges and seminaries, and denominations often have detailed statements of faith outlining doctrinal positions. Conservative institutions often hold a particular position on end times and the Second Coming. When confronted with a problem arising from the doctrinal stance, the result is often to do more self-serving research, or to turn to apologetics to show support for the position being defended. When a position is codified in the statement of faith, it is generally held even if evidence suggests a better paradigm. Whichever defensive strategy is used, the results usually suffice for those already convinced. Outsiders are seldom as impressed.
The protectionism that Sy Garte is dealing with is of a different nature than the theological defenses of a particular position. Garte speaks of a protectionism of the scientific method itself. While Moody is dealing with those defending doctrinal purity, Garte must deal with keeping science “scientific” without crossing into “scientism” (a position that science is the only reliable method of knowing).
The scientific method deals with empirical evidence observed in the natural world, and established use of a purely scientific approach precludes calling on the supernatural to explain what is not understood. This is understandable and necessary to avoid the unnecessary insertion of the miraculous into what is currently unknown or poorly understood. Saying it another way: the “God of the gaps” is not a good way to handle gaps in knowledge, as the closing of the knowledge gap effectively reduces God Himself. As Bonhoeffer pointed out, “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know” (3).
Analogies and the Limits to Certainty
Dr. Moody uses drilling wells as an analogy for the search for truth, while Dr. Garte has described it in terms of roads and paths (and the different vehicles needed to navigate them) in his earlier books.
What is evident from the perspectives of both Moody and Garte is that existing theological views on the Second Coming and the current neo-Darwinian evolution paradigm have reached limits. Given the way the universe works, this should not be at all surprising. Twentieth-century advances in physics tell us that although we see things on the surface in a way that seems to make sense, the underlying reality is weirder than we can contemplate, and if we truly wish to understand, then we must think differently.
As Garte points out in The Works of His Hands, we can only get to a certain point using science and even mathematics as the road. Eventually the road ends with “No Vehicles Beyond This Point.” We will need to take a different path to learn more (4). That sounds scary to a scientific mind that thinks truth can only be found on the scientific road. What is forgotten is that although a rough footpath might be necessary to continue, nothing precludes the footpath eventually returning to an improved road. Scientific progress might discover an improved road exists once clear of today’s obstacle. Until the next impassable obstacle, of course!
In Moody’s view, the problems encountered by the three competing schools of thought on the Second Coming of Christ arise from each of the competing schools drilling vertical wells. Wells go deep but they are hit-or-miss. They also generate a considerable amount of unhelpful waste, with the piles of waste sometimes obscuring valuable nuggets. And it goes without saying that the focus on one’s own well naturally leads to “Our well is the only well that will produce anything useful.”
Moody’s research uses lateral thinking to attempt to salvage those valuable nuggets rather than discard them. He further suggests that valuable nuggets from each of the three wells be salvaged, re-arranged, and then tested by drilling new wells at locations suggested by the “re-arranged” (out-of-the-box) thinking made possible by considering everyone’s positions (5).
Although Garte doesn’t use the expression “lateral thinking,” his works suggest that out-of-the-box thinking is now necessary for biology to advance. In Beyond Evolution, he is suggesting that agency, cognition, and purpose are increasingly evident at the cellular level and it might be a good idea to drill a new well at this point. Furthermore, this well should be open to philosophical and theological influence.
In a sense, both men are saying that there is a limit to certainty, and that at some point mystery or at least tension should be embraced. That can be extremely troublesome for both conservative Christians seeking doctrinal purity and for scientists (including scientists who are Christians) who may be placing undue confidence in the ability of empirical science to always be able to progress along purely naturalistic lines.
Uncertainty as a Tool for Progress
One would think that the scientific world would have some comfort level with uncertainty, given the importance of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as well as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which state that we eventually must make unprovable mathematical assumptions when trying to prove all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. These underly much of modern science and technology.
Both Heisenberg and Gödel have also been proven correct. That is important.
But what about the unproven? Lay people (including this author) often have at least cursory awareness of Heisenberg and Gödel but are likely to be less familiar with the Navier-Stokes equations, which deal with the motion of viscous fluids. These equations are helpful to the understanding of many phenomena including ocean currents, weather, blood flow, and aircraft design. What is interesting is that despite their great practical utility, the foundations of these equations remain unresolved. The world’s best mathematicians have so far not been able to prove that, in three dimension, their solutions remain “smooth” or well-behaved–that is, that they will not break down under some initial conditions.
In other words, we do not know if these equations always work, yet we find them useful because they……., well, they work. Likewise, theological perspectives are not empirical, and they are necessarily subjective. Does that make them unhelpful? Sy Garte would say: “No.”
Lateral Thinking and Integrative Complexity
Tim Helble has written blog posts on the topic of “integrated complexity,” briefly defined as the ability to recognize the complexity of topics and a willingness to entertain another point of view, or seeing value in different perspectives. The opposite of integrative complexity would be binary (either-or) thinking.
Moody is calling for a rejection of either-or and the embracing of both-and thinking in his work on the Second Coming of Christ. Could it be that the Kingdom of God is here on Earth at present (as one school emphasizes), while acknowledging that it came in 70 AD (as the preterist would suggest), and it still is yet to come (as the futurists are insisting)? Can we extract some useful nuggets from all three schools of thought, discard what would seem to be troublesome tailings from each of these three wells, and then rearrange what we have saved to create a better model we can then subject to examination and critique?
Dr. Moody thinks so.
Garte calls for a cessation of quarreling in Christian circles on the topic of origins, suggesting that old-earth progressive creationists, ID proponents, evolutionary creationists, and perhaps even everyone’s favorite punching bag, young-earth creationists, have something of value to add to our mutual understanding. But he goes beyond that to scientists practicing in the field of biology, saying in effect that there are limits to where and how far we can go using a purely naturalistic methodology. Is bringing the insight we can glean from the theological point of view worth the risk of contaminating the scientific method with the unscientific?
Dr. Garte would say that whether biology admits it or not, it already uses the language of teleology and purpose as it continues to research both the origin and functioning of existing life. Perhaps it is time for drilling in the theological/philosophical wells, especially since we are already thinking that way.
Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World
Helble points out that attempting to address complex problems facing the world with simplistic solutions is a recipe for failure (6). At the same time, it often seems that trying to get the world to embrace tension is an exercise in herding cats. How then might we encourage lateral thinking and increase the integrative complexity level in our communities?
In his very important 1994 book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll suggested Catholics and Protestants of all flavors begin considering the diverse perspectives each tradition had to offer. In essence, Noll suggests that all of the Christian traditions and denominations have useful nuggets that are underemphasized or underdeveloped in other traditions. Although considering the perspectives of others might seem to be risky (a compromise of purity), might the benefits to be gained from listening more charitably and learning from one another be worth it? Both Moody and Garte seem to think so, and perhaps Tim Helble puts it best: “Could it be that Jesus was telling us that we all need to raise our Integrative Complexity?” (7). Perhaps starting to use a bit more Lateral Thinking might help us do exactly that.
References
1. Sy Garte, Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2025), p. 109.
2. Garte, Chapter 4: Agency, Cognition, and Teleology (ACT) in Biology, p. 81ff.
3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1971. Letters and Papers from Prison. Ed. Eberhard Bethge. London: (SCM Press, 1971), as quoted in Holder, R., “Science and religion in the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 44(1),115–132. (2009) doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.00989.x.
4. Details can be found in Sy Garte, The Works of His Hands: A Scientist’s Journey from Atheism to Faith, (Grand Rapids:Kregel Publications, 2019), pp.113ff.
5. I am not quoting directly but summarizing a chapter from Stan Moody, Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship: A New Look at the Second Coming of Christ (Phoenix: ACW Press, 2001), Chapter 4. Lateral thinking was the methodology used for Dr. Moody’s dissertation, and the book is the same work repackaged.
6. Helble’s two-part blog on Integrative Complexity can be found here: https://www.columbiastreetproject.org/post/seeing-multiple-points-of-view-the-importance-of-integrative-complexity-part-1 and here https://www.columbiastreetproject.org/post/seeing-multiple-points-of-view-the-importance-of-integrative-complexity-part-2
7. See part 2 in the reference above.
Buddy Spaulding is a retired civil engineer with about 30 years experience mainly in highway construction, maintenance, and contracting. He is currently the owner of a truck driving school and has trained nearly 500 drivers in the last ten years. He is married to Lori, a Regency Romance writer, for 44 years. They have three children and four grandchildren, two horses, a cat, and three dogs. He is looking forward to retirement and plenty of fly fishing.
What both men seem to be suggesting is that we are at a roadblock in the respective fields of study, given the current paradigms in currency. New paradigms are needed. Moody deals with a situation where three general schools of thought keep on thinking along predetermined lines governed by theological and interpretive (of Scripture) models. Defense of one’s position may have its place, but the price paid is twofold: 1) the schools of thought do not utilize the better ideas of other schools; 2) digging deeper in the same general location unearths more troublesome rocks that must be dealt with or ignored.
Sy Garte is dealing with a scientific problem, while Stan Moody tackles a theological conundrum. What is the link?
The Problem of the Established Paradigm
Both are suggesting the need for new paradigms. What prevents a more widespread search for a better paradigm? Both authors see the problem arising from the desire to protect the prevailing methods.
This writer cannot speak from experience to protective attitudes in more moderate and liberal strains of Christianity but is very familiar with such attitudes in conservative American Protestantism. Churches, institutions such as colleges and seminaries, and denominations often have detailed statements of faith outlining doctrinal positions. Conservative institutions often hold a particular position on end times and the Second Coming. When confronted with a problem arising from the doctrinal stance, the result is often to do more self-serving research, or to turn to apologetics to show support for the position being defended. When a position is codified in the statement of faith, it is generally held even if evidence suggests a better paradigm. Whichever defensive strategy is used, the results usually suffice for those already convinced. Outsiders are seldom as impressed.
The protectionism that Sy Garte is dealing with is of a different nature than the theological defenses of a particular position. Garte speaks of a protectionism of the scientific method itself. While Moody is dealing with those defending doctrinal purity, Garte must deal with keeping science “scientific” without crossing into “scientism” (a position that science is the only reliable method of knowing).
The scientific method deals with empirical evidence observed in the natural world, and established use of a purely scientific approach precludes calling on the supernatural to explain what is not understood. This is understandable and necessary to avoid the unnecessary insertion of the miraculous into what is currently unknown or poorly understood. Saying it another way: the “God of the gaps” is not a good way to handle gaps in knowledge, as the closing of the knowledge gap effectively reduces God Himself. As Bonhoeffer pointed out, “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know” (3).
Analogies and the Limits to Certainty
Dr. Moody uses drilling wells as an analogy for the search for truth, while Dr. Garte has described it in terms of roads and paths (and the different vehicles needed to navigate them) in his earlier books.
What is evident from the perspectives of both Moody and Garte is that existing theological views on the Second Coming and the current neo-Darwinian evolution paradigm have reached limits. Given the way the universe works, this should not be at all surprising. Twentieth-century advances in physics tell us that although we see things on the surface in a way that seems to make sense, the underlying reality is weirder than we can contemplate, and if we truly wish to understand, then we must think differently.
As Garte points out in The Works of His Hands, we can only get to a certain point using science and even mathematics as the road. Eventually the road ends with “No Vehicles Beyond This Point.” We will need to take a different path to learn more (4). That sounds scary to a scientific mind that thinks truth can only be found on the scientific road. What is forgotten is that although a rough footpath might be necessary to continue, nothing precludes the footpath eventually returning to an improved road. Scientific progress might discover an improved road exists once clear of today’s obstacle. Until the next impassable obstacle, of course!
In Moody’s view, the problems encountered by the three competing schools of thought on the Second Coming of Christ arise from each of the competing schools drilling vertical wells. Wells go deep but they are hit-or-miss. They also generate a considerable amount of unhelpful waste, with the piles of waste sometimes obscuring valuable nuggets. And it goes without saying that the focus on one’s own well naturally leads to “Our well is the only well that will produce anything useful.”
Moody’s research uses lateral thinking to attempt to salvage those valuable nuggets rather than discard them. He further suggests that valuable nuggets from each of the three wells be salvaged, re-arranged, and then tested by drilling new wells at locations suggested by the “re-arranged” (out-of-the-box) thinking made possible by considering everyone’s positions (5).
Although Garte doesn’t use the expression “lateral thinking,” his works suggest that out-of-the-box thinking is now necessary for biology to advance. In Beyond Evolution, he is suggesting that agency, cognition, and purpose are increasingly evident at the cellular level and it might be a good idea to drill a new well at this point. Furthermore, this well should be open to philosophical and theological influence.
In a sense, both men are saying that there is a limit to certainty, and that at some point mystery or at least tension should be embraced. That can be extremely troublesome for both conservative Christians seeking doctrinal purity and for scientists (including scientists who are Christians) who may be placing undue confidence in the ability of empirical science to always be able to progress along purely naturalistic lines.
Uncertainty as a Tool for Progress
One would think that the scientific world would have some comfort level with uncertainty, given the importance of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as well as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which state that we eventually must make unprovable mathematical assumptions when trying to prove all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. These underly much of modern science and technology.
Both Heisenberg and Gödel have also been proven correct. That is important.
But what about the unproven? Lay people (including this author) often have at least cursory awareness of Heisenberg and Gödel but are likely to be less familiar with the Navier-Stokes equations, which deal with the motion of viscous fluids. These equations are helpful to the understanding of many phenomena including ocean currents, weather, blood flow, and aircraft design. What is interesting is that despite their great practical utility, the foundations of these equations remain unresolved. The world’s best mathematicians have so far not been able to prove that, in three dimension, their solutions remain “smooth” or well-behaved–that is, that they will not break down under some initial conditions.
In other words, we do not know if these equations always work, yet we find them useful because they……., well, they work. Likewise, theological perspectives are not empirical, and they are necessarily subjective. Does that make them unhelpful? Sy Garte would say: “No.”
Lateral Thinking and Integrative Complexity
Tim Helble has written blog posts on the topic of “integrated complexity,” briefly defined as the ability to recognize the complexity of topics and a willingness to entertain another point of view, or seeing value in different perspectives. The opposite of integrative complexity would be binary (either-or) thinking.
Moody is calling for a rejection of either-or and the embracing of both-and thinking in his work on the Second Coming of Christ. Could it be that the Kingdom of God is here on Earth at present (as one school emphasizes), while acknowledging that it came in 70 AD (as the preterist would suggest), and it still is yet to come (as the futurists are insisting)? Can we extract some useful nuggets from all three schools of thought, discard what would seem to be troublesome tailings from each of these three wells, and then rearrange what we have saved to create a better model we can then subject to examination and critique?
Dr. Moody thinks so.
Garte calls for a cessation of quarreling in Christian circles on the topic of origins, suggesting that old-earth progressive creationists, ID proponents, evolutionary creationists, and perhaps even everyone’s favorite punching bag, young-earth creationists, have something of value to add to our mutual understanding. But he goes beyond that to scientists practicing in the field of biology, saying in effect that there are limits to where and how far we can go using a purely naturalistic methodology. Is bringing the insight we can glean from the theological point of view worth the risk of contaminating the scientific method with the unscientific?
Dr. Garte would say that whether biology admits it or not, it already uses the language of teleology and purpose as it continues to research both the origin and functioning of existing life. Perhaps it is time for drilling in the theological/philosophical wells, especially since we are already thinking that way.
Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World
Helble points out that attempting to address complex problems facing the world with simplistic solutions is a recipe for failure (6). At the same time, it often seems that trying to get the world to embrace tension is an exercise in herding cats. How then might we encourage lateral thinking and increase the integrative complexity level in our communities?
In his very important 1994 book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll suggested Catholics and Protestants of all flavors begin considering the diverse perspectives each tradition had to offer. In essence, Noll suggests that all of the Christian traditions and denominations have useful nuggets that are underemphasized or underdeveloped in other traditions. Although considering the perspectives of others might seem to be risky (a compromise of purity), might the benefits to be gained from listening more charitably and learning from one another be worth it? Both Moody and Garte seem to think so, and perhaps Tim Helble puts it best: “Could it be that Jesus was telling us that we all need to raise our Integrative Complexity?” (7). Perhaps starting to use a bit more Lateral Thinking might help us do exactly that.
References
1. Sy Garte, Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2025), p. 109.
2. Garte, Chapter 4: Agency, Cognition, and Teleology (ACT) in Biology, p. 81ff.
3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1971. Letters and Papers from Prison. Ed. Eberhard Bethge. London: (SCM Press, 1971), as quoted in Holder, R., “Science and religion in the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 44(1),115–132. (2009) doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.00989.x.
4. Details can be found in Sy Garte, The Works of His Hands: A Scientist’s Journey from Atheism to Faith, (Grand Rapids:Kregel Publications, 2019), pp.113ff.
5. I am not quoting directly but summarizing a chapter from Stan Moody, Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship: A New Look at the Second Coming of Christ (Phoenix: ACW Press, 2001), Chapter 4. Lateral thinking was the methodology used for Dr. Moody’s dissertation, and the book is the same work repackaged.
6. Helble’s two-part blog on Integrative Complexity can be found here: https://www.columbiastreetproject.org/post/seeing-multiple-points-of-view-the-importance-of-integrative-complexity-part-1 and here https://www.columbiastreetproject.org/post/seeing-multiple-points-of-view-the-importance-of-integrative-complexity-part-2
7. See part 2 in the reference above.
Buddy Spaulding is a retired civil engineer with about 30 years experience mainly in highway construction, maintenance, and contracting. He is currently the owner of a truck driving school and has trained nearly 500 drivers in the last ten years. He is married to Lori, a Regency Romance writer, for 44 years. They have three children and four grandchildren, two horses, a cat, and three dogs. He is looking forward to retirement and plenty of fly fishing.