John Polkinghorne's The Universe As Creation

John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.

Polkinghorne asserts that “scientists are motivated by the desire understand what is happening in the world.”(551, Polkinghorne). As a physicist himself, Polkinghorne understands the desire to understand the world, even shifting careers to become a priest to better his understanding. Science asks how things happen, and does not attempt to answer every question. Questions asking why go ignored, as if they are not necessary to fully understand the world and the life that lives here. Science alone

cannot answer every question, or fulfil a desire to understand, because science cannot be determined by reason alone. One must be able to ask why, to truly understand the how, and the true is same in reverse. In the Western world, there are two different metaphysical understandings. The first is wholly empirical, taking facts from the existing material world. The second assumes what Polkinghorne calls a divine agent, which orders the world in accordance with the divine’s will. The second path is theism, and understands the universe in terms through divine creation. Both stances have been argued for and against through centuries and centuries, but recently a new defense of theism has occurred. Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is able to explain parts of the world that have not been explained through science, via an intelligent designer working throughout history, yet are careful to not claim a God or divine creator.
SCIENCE
“We have seen that physics does not determine metaphysics, but it certainly constrains it, rather as the foundations of a house do not determine the edifice that will be erected on them, but do constrain its possible form.” (552, Polkinghorne).
Polkinghorne considers five aspects of science’s view of reality for intelligent design, the first being fragmentary accounts. Although we may understand each level of physics individually, we do not understand the relationships they have with each other, leading to a spotty understanding of physics as a whole. An example that Polkinghorne provides is the unresolved perplexities surrounding the physical understanding between quantum and classical physics, even after eighty years of work (553). Quantum physics is based on the superposition principle that permits a combination of states, which to classical physics is impossible, and considered downright ludicrous. Because of the superposition principle, there is a measurement problem, because sometimes the electron is measured and is here, and other times it will be there; here and there being relative areas and dimensions in concern to the electrons. So although the relative probabilities of both answers can be calculated with a great deal of accuracy, there is no agreement as to why such things happen to exist and occur in the manner in which they do. And because a physicist does not wish to admit ignorance in their field of study, quantum and classical physics although they are related, the relation is not understood. Another example is the failed joining of the quantum and chaos theories that express anything in a coherent manner. The two theories, although there is an implication that they work together, fail to do so, because they break laws of physics and contradict each other in multiple ways, not least of which is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Physicists are unable to offer a complete and uninterrupted account of the world, or even establish causality in the physical universe. This means that although physicists can understand, describe and have near complete knowledge of different levels of physics from subatomic up, they cannot understand how everything fits together. Although Polkinghorne is still establishing the scientific view points for intelligent design, with this being the first of five, he is laying the foundation for the intelligent design proponents and their claims. Although not a proponent of intelligent design himself, he does not place the burden of proof solely on science’s shoulders, as most proponents might.
The second aspect is unpredictability, which covers all layers of physics, from subatomic to the macroscopic.

Unpredictability cannot be measured, nor can the unpredictability be removed, as that would violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Humans generally fall under this principle, for although humans might seem to violate Heisenberg’s principle, there is a general unpredictability to the causality of intentional human action. The same goes for divine action, and science cannot forbid either of these

actions.
The third aspect is relationality, where once again, physics seeks to contradict itself through relationality. Classical or Newtonian physics, has particles acting on each other through collision, but otherwise not interfering with other particles. Einstein’s theory of general relativity combines space, time and matter together and matter is affected by the space-time curve and the space-time curve is affected by matter. And in quantum physics once two particles have interacted, they will continue to act on each other, even after separating and no matter the distance. Ultimately, all three theories have particles interacting with each other in relation to their positions.
The fourth aspect is evolving and emergent complexity. The basic concept behind this, is the longer something goes on for the more complex and evolved it becomes. Polkinghorne’s example is the universe, which 13.7 billion years ago was a small lump of atoms that expanded into what we know today. Evolution is based upon chance, or a contingent particularity, and necessity, which is the lawful regularity of the world. Both chance and necessity are required for evolution because a pure necessity world would never have anything new, while a pure chance world would always have something new, and nothing would be able to sustain itself. However conventional evolution is not the complete scientific account for the universe, but it is a starting point.
The fifth and last aspect is fine-tuned potentiality, which focuses more upon the necessity half of evolution. Because although life in the universe has only come around relatively recently, that possibility has been there since the beginning of the universe. Fred Hoyle, perceived an intelligent design in how the universe came around, which is different from Intelligent Design in that Hoyle’s perception attributes a design to the whole of the game, and Intelligent Design focuses on individual parts of the game.
THEOLOGY
Polkinghorne’s intention for this essay is to prove that seeing the universe as a divine creation is the most intellectually satisfying. To help prove this, he presents three theological concepts.
The first concept is creation.

Polkinghorne describes as “…see[ing] the world as creation is to believe that the mind of God lies behind its marvelous order and the will of God behind its fruitful history.” (555). He also believes that it is the human mind that makes the necessary and sometimes illogical leaps that has made science possible, and although science cannot explain the mind, it can be explained because humans are made in God’s image. These leaps are made so that humans can have some understanding of the world they live in, and even to see the universe as a creation and see the intelligent design woven into its fabric is not establishing that the divine being that created the universe plays with each part separately. Polkinghorne sees this as assuming God as a “grand Ordainer”, which does not control everything, but instead gives it the potential, within

order.
The second concept is kenosis. Polkinghorne talks about creatorly kenosis, which he describes as a divine self-limitation so that the created can “truly...be itself”. This way of thinking is a theological way to interpret evolution, being able to both include a creator in the process, but also accept science. The only problem with this is that when something bad happens, like death, cancer, or mutations, people can feel as if they have been abandoned by their Creator, but Polkinghorne sees it as a necessary cost of creation.
The third concept is providence. “There are no adequate scientific grounds requiring us to exclude a metaphysics of agency, including the possibility of divine providential into action in the course of unfolding history.” (556). Leaving a universe open and free allows an understanding of divine providence as kick start to the process of evolution and the universe in a general sense. Polkinghorne suggests that a divine creator could be uncovered in the murky depths of unpredictable and misunderstood science. And if it true, then science cannot ever be fully understood, because it is past the limited thoughts of man to understand the divine. Polkinghorne asserts that although acts of providence are understood by faith, they could never be demonstrated by experiment. The same is true of miracles, as science cannot quantify or justify miracles.
INELLIGENT DESIGN
The providence just referenced shows God as continuously interacting with creation.