Design Argument in Scientific Discourse: Historical-Theological Perspective From the Seventeenth Century, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 1998 by Hutchison, John C

A second and less obvious area of concern in Bacon's theological base was his failure to incorporate into his views the possibility of a fallen world. What were the effects on the physical world brought about by God's curse in Genesis 3? What about the effects on man's intellectual abilities? Does the enmity that Scripture describes between fallen man and creation place any limitations on his ability to understand fully his world? Even theologically astute scientists debate the relevance of this issue, and Biblical scholars recognize that limited information is provided in Scripture. While the purpose of this paper is not to discuss fully this issue, it is important to note that Bacon's viewpoint was a reaction to the excesses of medieval theology and strongly influenced many to follow him. As noted earlier he believed that the physical universe showed no effects from man's fall to sin, and this became an essential part of his two-book view of revelation. By studying the book of nature, one was not only learning from the Creator but also taking an unspoiled look at God's plan. A perfect creation untouched by sin was seen by Bacon and others as a more accurate, almost inerrant, revelation when compared to the endlessly debated written Scriptures. This view contributed in part to the later claim of science to be a completely objective pursuit of truth when compared to the subjective approach of philosophy or theology. Such views also formed the foundation for eighteenth-century deism, which denied the reality of sin completely. Bacon himself speaks of the inclination toward goodness being imprinted deeply in the nature of man.8

Living shortly after Bacon and opposing his view of a pristine world was the influential cleric Thomas Burnet. While viewed by many as an eccentric, Burnet maintained that the physical world, like man, is a damaged creation. Though in principle it shows some evidence of its Creator's design, that design had been affected by sin.9 Burnet's views were supported by Bishop Joseph Butler in 1736.10 Butler, who was opposing the prevailing deism of his day, challenged the notion that nature perfectly and unambiguously reveals its Designer. He was seeking to point out the reality of a sinful world with obscurities and contradictions. Challenges like those of theologians Burnet and Butler had little effect on the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scientific movement. In reality, however, they were pursuing some of the most important questions.

These were precisely the issues that later troubled young Charles Darwin as he listened to the scientists and natural theologians of his day. The world he observed contained, in fact, many anomalies and imperfections that did not point to an all-wise, omnipotent Creator. Darwin's genius was the formulation of a theoretical natural mechanism that could explain the order as well as the chaos. Evolutionary thinking caught on so quickly in Darwin's era because it looked at the world realistically rather than through the rosecolored spectacles of the nineteenth-century scientist-clerics. ll As has been demonstrated in the present article, the theological foundation for this view of nature in the nineteenth century had been built in the previous two centuries by Bacon and other early pioneers.