If we ask infidel science how everything originated, it answers:
_Through evolution!_ The world has developed during millions of years.
But if we ask further: Whence and from what? You yourselves claim
that _nothing originates in nothing_, then this world must, according
to your own postulates, have originated in something, for your own
fundamental claim is that it cannot have risen out of nothingness.
To this the general answer is that perhaps there was a small beginning,
a protoplasm from which all things grew. But if there has been such
a protoplasm, it certainly is an unprecedented miracle. Never at
any later time has anyone beheld such a protoplasm through which an
entire world arose, and in that case _all existence is based upon a
miracle_. This has only been assigned to as remote a time as possible,
and even though one had not freed himself of the miracle, it was not
irritatingly present as a constant probability in the evolution of the
world. For, to admit that an Almighty God created everything from the
very beginning is synonymous with admitting the fact of the miracle
as a constant probability. It is impossible for us to conceive that
the Almighty at the time of the Creation should have so exhausted His
powers that He now faces His creations as one who is utterly powerless.
If His omnipotence made all things, then He must still be able, through
that very omnipotence, to interfere, to mend and to increase, because
in His wisdom He realizes that it so serves the promotion of his
eternal plans.
Yes, but the _miracle is contrary to nature_, it is said.
Let us see! When Jesus at the marriage at Cana in Galilee turned water
into wine, a miracle happened, and many believed in Him.
_Water into wine!_ Is that really contrary to nature? Is it not the
very same thing that happens in nature every summer when the water
of the soil is absorbed into the tender roots of the vine and passes
through its branches, finally becoming wine in the grapes? The turning
of water into wine is no change which rests upon violation of the laws
of nature. In nature this happens in accordance with those plans which
are the guiding laws of the powers of nature. At Cana in Galilee it
happened in another way, but the same thing was accomplished: Water
became wine! There is unity in the achievement. Is there not also an
inner harmony between the powers working according to plans and laws
in nature, and those which work untrammeled through the miracle? I
think that we here are facing a unity in those powers--a relationship
as intimate as between the Father and His only begotten Son who rests
in His arms. And when we witness other miracles in which this unity
becomes invisible to us, I certainly do not think it is because the
unity is absent, but just because we are too shortsighted to perceive
it. But then the miracle is, after all, not contrary to nature when
looked at profoundly.
But the miracle is in conflict with the _immutable laws_ of nature, it
is said.
Let us mention an instance. I fetch a silver dollar and throw it up in
the air. According to the law of gravity, which is one of the immutable
laws of nature, it falls toward the ground, but by a firm resolve and
by the strength in my arm I may catch it and hold it in the air.
What happens then? Is the law of nature violated, or is it rendered
ineffective? By no means! But another unit of power appears which in
this case is strong enough to hold the dollar in the air in spite of
the fact that the law of nature acts upon it with its power in order to
lead it earthwards. By my firm resolve and by the strength in my arm
something else happens than if I had not interfered.
Yes, you say, such an insignificant thing as a coin anyone may keep in
the air. It is different when we speak about the immense system of the
universe. But--do you know whether or not the entire universe with its
countless astral bodies weigh more in the hands of the Almighty than a
silver dollar in mine? I do not believe it. Then, what you and I may
do on a small scale, God Almighty may do on the larger scale without
annihilating the laws of nature. They act as usual, each according to
its own plan, but God Almighty may interfere and cause that something
else will happen than would otherwise have happened, in spite of the
fact that the laws of nature retain their entire power.
Finally it is said that miracle is contrary to _our experience_.
Let us imagine an old sailor a couple of hundred years ago. Through
more than a generation he had steered his vessel sometimes aided by
wind and currents, sometimes against them. If he were told that a ship
might be steered straight against the wind and the currents without
sails, without cruising, without oar strokes, he would have uttered a
fierce sailors' oath that such a story was a lie--wild imagination!
No, he knew by _experience_ what was the power of the wind and the
currents, and he had been struggling ever so gallantly against those
very powers of the sea--no, no--don't tell me stories like that! You
may be able to find some unexperienced people who will believe tales of
that kind, but I know better.
Meanwhile we all know nowadays that the proud vessels sail steadily
against wind and currents without canvas sails, without cruising
manoeuvres and without oar strokes. What is the reason for this? Are
wind and currents adhering to other laws in our days, or has their
effect been changed? No, not at all! But the old salt thought that his
experience was exhaustive in this special field. It all required a
power which he did not know, and in whose existence he did not believe.
The attitude of the unbelieving science in our age toward the miracle
is exactly like this. It has emitted many a droll sailor's oath to
affirm that the miracle is contrary to its experience--and with the
very same justification as did the sailor. We all need being reminded
that human experience is very, very limited. It embraces such a small
fraction of the universe, and it is not inclined to concede its
limitations. The handicap of science is that of the sailor. In order
to steer his ship right against wind and currents a power was required
which he did not know and in whose existence he would not believe. In
order to let the miracle happen, a power is required of which science,
as such, does not know and in whose existence it refuses to believe.
How many unbelieving physicians have not sworn as drastically as
did the sailor, that they could not share the Christian faith in
resurrection? The physician says like the sailor: I know better--don't
tell me stories! I have seen too often how that pumping machinery
in the human body which is called heart, comes to a stop, and when
the heart ceases beating, the eye is extinguished, and the body
approaches the process of dissolution. Don't tell me anything about the
resurrection of the dead. It is contrary to my experience.--And yet,
all that is required in order to make this possible, is a power which
he does not know, and in whose existence he will not believe.
He who was powerful enough to turn dust into man from the beginning,
certainly is powerful enough to revivify that dust.
The existence of this power is recognized, and has been experienced,
in the church of the Lord. But, here we stop by asserting that _that
miracle in nature means that God works in other ways than those
determined by the plans and laws of nature_. It is the very same power
of God that works through the miracle as through nature restrained by
laws.