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

And first, how boundless a power, or rather what an almightiness is eminently displayed in God's making out of nothing all things, and without materials or instruments constructing this immense fabrick of the world, whose vastness is such, that even what may be proved of it, can scarcely be conceived.... How manifold are thy works, O Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all. And therefore I shall content myself to observe in general, that, as highly as some naturalists are pleased to value their own knowledge, it can at best attain but to understand and applaud, not emulate the productions of God.21

I must needs acknowledge Lindamor, that when with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, that adorn the upper region of the world; and when with excellent microscopes I discern, in otherwise invisible objects, the inimitable subtlety of nature's curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knaves, and the light of chymical furnaces, I study the book of nature, and consult the glosses of Aristotle, Epicurus, Paracelsus, Harvey, Helmont, and other learned expositors of that instructive volume: I find myself oftentimes reduced to explain with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in wisdom hast Thou made them all! (Ps. 104:24).22

His scientific observations regularly include comments that prove that theological reflection in his science was a motivating force. Nature, for Boyle, represented an endless reservoir of curiosities and wonders that led him to praise God and tirelessly pursue knowledge of the world God had created. It is this sense of wonder at creation, tempered by a humble submission to the Creator, that distinguishes Boyle's science from his modern counterparts. Twentieth-century scientists overwhelmingly resist the intrusion of religious discussion in any form, claiming that it ultimately discourages scientific investigation by appeal to religious explanations. The god-of-the-gaps criticism is a classic example of this. Westfall notes:

The virtuoso will check the proofs of Christianity more thoroughly than the ordinary man; since Christianity is true, the virtuoso's acceptance will be more sure than the ordinary man's.... The farther he penetrated into nature, the more splendid were the things that he discovered. Atheism or skepticism were impossible to his mind, for each fresh observation awoke more profound reverence for the Creator.23

Seeking to support theology through science led, however, to a subtle change in the way these realms were to be related philosophically, as noted by Gerald Cragg:

In other and more subtle ways, the changing outlook affected the approach to religious problems. Science strengthened the tendency to give reason an ever larger role in theological discussion. Though the leading scientists believed that they were scrupulously loyal to traditional beliefs, they slightly modified the discussion of subjects of miracles and scripture, and these changes paved the way for the drastic revisions which the Deists demanded. The scientists also refused to argue from presuppositions; they insisted that we must first begin with evidence.24