Since when is truth decided by whether something increases *our
awareness* of our dependence on God? Just because we fallen humans tend
to ignore God when he doesn't make himself obvious to us (and sometimes
even when he does) doesn't mean God has to accomodate our failings by
working in "special" ways. Theologically, we *are* dependent on God, no
matter how he created things. It might increase our awareness of him
even more if there were a giant cross orbiting the Earth (to go back to
the "Contact" thread). And we, in our lack of faith, might wish that
such awareness-increasing things existed. But God does not necessarily
reveal himself in the ways we wish. I'm not (at least here) arguing
against "special creation" as you probably mean it, just pointing out
that its likelihood of being true is not increased if it happens to
accomodate our fallen notions of what we think we need in order to be
aware of God.
>> What people read as ruling out evolution really doesn't rule it out.
>
>And what people read as proving evolution doesn't prove it.
Exactly! Now we're agreed that the scientific theory of evolution is not
demanded by the Bible, and is not inconsistent with the Bible. Now we can
stop most of our science/faith arguments, let evolution as science
continue, and stop acting as though the truth of the Gospel hinged on the
scientific details of how God did his creating.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | Phone: (303)497-3555 |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | Fax: (303)497-5224 |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Don't blame the government for what I say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------