>>BH>Stephen, your observation cuts both ways. Those of us who accept
>>>evolution are frequently puzzled by the question of just what it is
>>>that a PC objects to about evolution.
>>
>Stephen Jones wrote:
>>In a nutshell, it denies that God can (or has) intervened directly in
>>biological history. Theologically, TE seems a different view of God
>>that one reads about in the Bible.
I was about to respond to this when Terry's response popped up. I pretty
much agree with Terry's response, and I just want to add this:
Not only do I believe that God has intervened directly in history, I
believe that He _does_ intervene directly in history. And I have seen Him
intervene directly -- in the form of numerous answered prayers. Let's be
clear: this is a disagreement about _how_ God does things, not over
_whether_ He does things, or whether He is personal, or whether He cares.
Really, I doubt that God sees a whole lot of difference between causing a
kingdom to be lost by the loss of a nail from a horse's shoe[1] and zapping
the kingdom's armies with lightning on the battlefield -- except that
perhaps the first way is more elegant. Churchill, in "History of the
English-speaking peoples" notes a number of instances in English history
where seeming coincidences of ordinary events caused unlikely things to
happen, and these happenings contributed to the development of limited
government and religious freedom. Churchill didn't believe these were
coincidences, and I don't either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[1] You've all read it I'm sure, but just in case:
For lack of a nail the shoe was lost;
For lack of a shoe the horse was lost;
For lack of a horse the rider was lost;
For lack of a rider the battle was lost;
For lack of a victory the kingdom was lost.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)