>>The assumption that most of God's sustenance of nature is
>>"natural" may be based both upon the observed rarity of miracles in the
>>Bible, history,
>
> "most of... rarity..."
> But you know that creationists agree with this, so why should you
>suggest that this is an argument against creationism? The difference
>is between OCCASIONAL miracles (OEC) and NEVER miracles (TE), rather
>than between OCCASIONALLY miracles (all theists agree with this) and
>USUALLY miracles (which nobody claims, so it is a strawman).
Any Flood geology scenario that I have encountered requires usually
miracles. Recent creation of an old-looking earth requires a big initial
miracle, but not the extreme level of intervention demanded by an effort to
create the observed features of creation during a one-year flood by
purportedly natural side effects. Old-earth creationism may or may not
require a usually miraculous approach. Hugh Ross's special creation of
every species, in addition to reflecting lack of knowledge about ongoing
speciation, requires evolution to be usually miraculous. Behe's (or
Darwin's) miraculous creation of the first cell, followed by non-miraculous
evolution, is occasional miracles.
Another caution, brought up by Davis Young (I think in Creation and the
Flood), is the danger of saying "This particular event was brought about by
miraculous means". The specific example was, given a belief in special
creation of certain major groups of animals, one should not say that the
oldest known fossil representative was specially created. Maybe its
immediate ancestor will be discovered next week.
The frequency of miracles in history and everyday observation does not
favor TE over an occasionally miraculous OEC or YEC view, but it does not
favor OEC or YEC over TE, either.
David C.