Harmonizing Evolution and Guidance at BioLogos

Slightly more than that if you look at the abiogenesis article. I would say that they would prefer to assume natural processes even if the cause or mechanism is not understood.
I see it as a mix of positivism and a weaker kind of naturalism (one where God creates using the "laws of nature).

1 Like

4 posts were split to a new topic: Who Affirms De Novo Creation of Adam and Eve?

In this view, which is similar to @jongarvey’s, science doesn’t study the “natural,” it studies the “regular.” Anything irregular is outside science, and supernatural processes would be incorrectly categorized as natural processes.


Yes. Though, to expand it, you simply have to explore what “natural” means, if it doesn’t mean “regular,” without making a metaphysical commitment about theism.



Very concise!

I implicitly refer to such “regularity” when I say “natural” means “lawful nature”, with “super-natural” meaning unlawful events (aka: “not regular”).

In the common view among Thomists, the natural (which can be studied by science) does not cleanly overlap with the regular and supernatural with the irregular, even if there is some correlation. For example, there are rare but perfectly scientific phenomena such as the Big Bang. More importantly, there are common phenomena which contains components which cannot be fully explained by the scientific method, such as consciousness, the creation of a human soul, or spiritual regeneration. (Of course, a materialist-naturalist would insist that all of these phenomena are indeed explained by natural material causes, which is why we call them physical reductionists. But that is not the majority Christian belief.)

To home in on a common example: new humans are created all the time through the processes of biological reproduction which science can study pretty well. However, this does not mean that there is nothing supernatural occurring every time a new human is formed. Since it is believed that God uniquely and directly creates every soul, then there is a “regular supernatural component” to human biological reproduction. Moreover, this is believed not because of a scientific argument (as ID proponents like to argue), but because of a metaphysical one. Thus, the existence of “continuing miracles” is not something that a Thomist would necessarily be embarrassed to admit.


Those definitions don’t sound right to me. If we ran into an irregular process that could be empirically measured then science could at least try to study it. How many well supported theories started out by studying irregular phenomenon? Also, are us humans irregular in our actions, and can science study humans?

In my own estimation, the supernatural tag is more of an axiom. We are saying from the very beginning that we can not understand the process and science isn’t able to study it. Many people will claim that science excludes the supernatural from the start, but I think it is actually the opposite where people are actively excluding their beliefs from methodological and empirical scrutiny.


Not particularly successfully.
I dont think sciences centred on human actions such as economics are ever going to be “exact” science.