The question is not whether or not God could do it, the question is did he.
There are indications within the creation accounts themselves that normal
providence was at work. Gen. 2:5 seems to suggest that no plants had grown
because there was no water: no rain or no man to provide irrigation.
See Meredith G. Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony"
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996)
[available on-line at http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html ]
and the earlier article referred to therein
Meredith G. Kline, "Because It Had Not Rained" The Westminster Theological
Journal 20 (1958):146-157.
These Kline articles also give exegetical grounds for not taking Genesis 1
as literal. Here's from the abstract to the first article:
To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week
propounded by the
young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the
same time, the
exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age
view. The
conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with
respect to both the
duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of
biblical constraints in
hypothesizing about cosmic origins.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html