>I think the sovereignty point here was the destruction of humanity, not
>destroying evidence. My query says that God's miraculous "clean up" is what
>it was, a miracle, and didn't destroy evidence.
Certainly God could have brought about a miraculous clean-up that made
things look as they had before. But I don't see how you can declare that
that would not be destroying evidence. (And I imply no criticism of God
should He choose to destroy evidence, of course) In any case, a global
flood would be a very significant act of God, that His people would talk
about for many generations. It would have considerable apologetic value --
if there was fairly unambiguous evidence it had occurred. So if your
scenario is correct, I'm left puzzled about why God would hide one of his
great acts from humans.
>Indeed, God was not
>interested in the after effects, especially where it concerns those who
>"demand" certain answers.
Agreed that God does not engage in tricks at the whim of unbelievers just
to prove He exists. However, He does urge us to study the world He has
created (e.g. Job 12:7-9) and (again in Job 12:7-9) suggests that we can
learn some things about Him by studying creation. In view of this, I'd be
cautious about arguing that He has hidden what He has done.
>
>If God is truly sovereign, why aren't we allow him his miracles? Isn't this
>highly presumptuous?
I have no problem with this. There are plenty of Godly people who
investigate natural phenomena from a uniformitarian point of view and see
no conflict. And I don't believe they are ruling out miracles, either.
There are also people like Art and a few others who are looking at natural
phenomena from a nonuniformitarian point of view. Ideally what should
happen is that the two camps should have honest but respectful debates and
each try to
learn from the other. Unfortunately, because of abuses on both sides, that
doesn't happen as often as it should.
>
One point that has been pecking away at me all day is the question of just
how we decide what is a miracle. (Maybe we ought all to read C. S.
Lewis'book, "Miracles") Sometimes young-earth creationists ask me if I
believe the miracles in the New Testament. Jesus' turning water into wine
at Cana is an example they sometimes bring up. While the account doesn't
say "This is a miracle" in bold face type, it seems clear to me that it is
a miracle. I know of no process that turns water into wine in a few
minutes (or seconds), and the appearance of the wine clearly meets a need
that was presented to Jesus. It sometimes seems to me that the young-earth
creationists, with their naturalistic explanations of the flood, are trying
to take the flood -- in part -- out of the miracle category. Atheistic
naturalists OTOH are willing to let it be a miracle because they don't
believe miracles happen -- nor do they believe the flood happened. I
believe the flood did occur, but whether we'll ever identify the exact time
or location I don't know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Bill Hamilton
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center
Warren, MI