>Ultimately, for me at least, PC is more in harmony with the
>interventionist God of the Bible. God is One who intervenes in human
>history at strategic points, therefore I assume He also intervened in
>biological history at strategic point.
I think you have a non sequiter here. God intervenes in human history
because it suits His purposes. If He can accomplish His purposes in
biological history without intervening, then I presume He wouldn't.
However, I disagree with your implication that TE implies God does not
intervene. I am simply claiming that God's means of intervention (or more
properly, as a Calvinist, I should say "governance" since to me
intervention implies a change in plans) are not necessarily visible to
humans.
>If science cannot resolve the
>difference between TE and PC, then the decisive factor is theology and
>one's interpretation of the Biblical evidence.
>
If science were static, that is if we could know that a particular
discipline has gone as far as it can go and no further understanding is
possible, then I'd agree with you totally. But there's no way of knowing
whether additional investigation will yield additional knowledge, other
than pursuing it. So it seems to me very unlikely that there will ever be
a juncture in history -- prior to the Lord's return -- at which scientists
in any field will be ready to use the Bible to resolve an ambiguity in the
interpretation of physical evidence in their fields. They would rather
continue investigating.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)