Teaching organic chemistry, I have grown accustomed to the moment when students’ eyes begin to glaze over, and their faces seem to ask, “What’s the point of learning all of this?” It is a fair question, and not only for students trying to survive learning countless chemical reactions. In a culture that is suspicious of anything that lacks immediate utility, this question looms large over science itself. If research does not cure a disease, develop a new technology, or solve a societal problem, what is it for?
Chemistry offers a unique way to think about this question. Roald Hoffmann, one of the most thoughtful chemists of the last century, describes chemistry as an intertwining practice of discovery and creation.[1] For the past few centuries, chemists have worked diligently to understand the substances that make up this world. However, the chemist’s favorite way to discover is through the process of creation—the synthesis of new molecules to understand the world around us. Every day, chemists make molecules that have never existed before in the history of the universe to study the fundamental principles of chemical structure, design new materials, and cure diseases. This molecular craftsmanship defines chemistry. In chemistry, the question concerning the purpose of science acquires a distinct form. Rather than merely studying creation, we are actively reshaping it.
In thinking this through, the term creatio tertia, meaning “third creation,” has been helpful. Originating in the Reformed tradition with Albert Wolters, it refers to human participation in God’s creative activity.[2] After God created the world (creatio prima) and then formed it (creatio secunda), He commissioned humanity with the ongoing task of developing creation (Genesis 1:28).
This task of developing human society and culture represents a third phase of God’s creative activity. As David Innes frames creatio tertia, it is the formation and elaboration of what God has left unformed and undeveloped.[3] This is the fulfillment of the commission given in the garden to “fill and subdue” the earth. In theology, this idea is commonly referred to as the creation mandate. In this view, scientific practice possesses an inherent directionality because we are joining a creative work that began long before the modern scientific enterprise. Bruce Ashford and Craig Bartholomew frame this as the duty of image-bearers to continue to develop creation and “make something of it for [God’s] glory.”[4]
Through chemical synthesis, chemists fulfill creatio tertia by crafting the material world into something useful, new, interesting, or exciting. Chemists are entrusted to participate in the revealing of creation’s potential through synthesizing new substances. Chemistry is not alone in this. Science, as a whole, serves as creatio tertia, since it represents an area of humanity’s effort to cultivate this wonderful world. Similarly, the spheres of politics, art, technology, and business work toward the development of creation, though in a less material sense.
Approaching science from the perspective of creatio tertia has the potential to redefine our outlook on science. Viewing science as a participation in God’s ongoing work, we receive an answer to the question of what science is for: cultivating creation. We receive this world as a gift and steward it towards further development. Both discovery and creation in chemistry have their place within creatio tertia. Through discovery, we cultivate our understanding of the world God made. Abraham Kuyper describes scientific discovery as pulling back the curtain “behind which radiates the exalted working of divine thinking.”[5] Science develops as we discover new biochemical pathways, solve chemical mysteries, and detect molecules floating in interstellar clouds. Through creation, we take the rich resources of the natural world and form them into something new and useful. Our creative efforts geared toward making products like adhesives, soaps, materials, or pharmaceuticals help realize the possibilities contained within creation.
This call to cultivate the earth, in the same manner as our first parents in Eden, has practical implications for my everyday chemical practice. Is my difficult, resource-intensive project a waste of time and resources if it has no hopes to cure a disease? Not at all. There is a place for discovery and wonder in chemistry—and science in general—that is not reducible to pragmatism or efficiency. Certainly, I want to diligently steward my resources well, but even investigating my little corner of the chemical world can still find fulfillment as creatio tertia. When I lecture about reactions that have been developed or teach students how to think about synthesis, I emphasize that these are examples of humanity taking what God has provided us and developing it further.
Science is the cultivation of creation. As I shape, form, and chisel atoms into new molecular forms, I participate in creation, not as creator, but as creature with a vocational task. I recognize that much of my students’ knowledge of organic chemistry will wane over time. If nothing else, my prayer is that they are able to see a glimpse of chemistry’s part in humanity’s calling to cultivate God’s world through discovery and creation.
[1] Ronald Hoffmann, “Marginalia: Creation and Discovery,” American Scientist, 78, 14 (1990): 14-15. https://roaldhoffmann.com/sites/default/files/fromd6/creation_and_discovery.pdf
[2] Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd ed. (Eerdmans, 2005)
[3] David C. Innes, Christ and the Kingdoms of Men: Foundations of Political Life (P&R Publishing, 2019).
[4] Bruce Riley Ashford and Craig G. Bartholomew. The Doctrine of Creation: A Constructive Kuyperian Approach (IVP Academic, 2020).
[5] Abraham Kuyper, Wisdom & Wonder: Common Grace in Science & Art, Eds. Jordan J. Ballor and Stephen J. Grabill; trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Christian’s Library Press, 2011).
This is an excellent essay, Christian–I love your relating chemistry to creatio tertia–thank you for posting it!
I’m not a chemist, but I took undergraduate organic chemistry many years ago. Balancing equations was not fun, but those equations taught me many things, such as how burning methane or propane produces water and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but burning hydrogen just produces water. The processes we studied helped me better understand what was happening ‘beneath the hood’ of so many everyday activities: eating, drinking, cooking, cleaning, gardening, building a campfire, driving a car, … So many practical applications!