>I am numbered among those who hold a high view of God.
Excellent, so am I. But you already knew that, did you not?
>He is Almighty, Sovereign and Omniscient, and therefore able to achieve
His creative purposes in any manner of ways.
Right (although I might quibble about your words, "any manner." The manner
chosen must, of course, be consistent with God's character.)
God is also, I believe, unfathomably creative and generous. What we are
trying to do is to discover, by all means provided to us, including our
capabilities for scientific investigation of the Creation itself, just what
manner is expressive of God's being and will.
Proponents of episodic creationism tend to place highest value on divine
power, say to impose novel structures and forms on matter not equiped to do
so with its own capabilities. My perspective, let's call it the
'Fully-Gifted Creation Perspective,' places higher emphasis on such divine
attributes as creativity (in conceptualizing a Creation with a formational
economy sufficiently robust to make biotic evolution possible) and
generosity (in choosing to gift the Creation with such a rich array of
capabilities).
<snip>
Vernon went on to say, >"However, I personally see no good
reason for questioning the literal meaning of the Creation Narrative."
I think you should use the plural, 'narratives.' There are two in Genesis
1-3, with differing perspectives AND differing chronological sequences,
making any single 'literal' reading very strained. Read more of my thoughts
on the relevance of Scripture when you get _The Fourth Day_
<snip>
Vernon again: >"Neither am I convinced by the arguments for evolution. The
assumption of constancy in the rates of decay of radioactive isotopes
suggests that the 'old earth' hypothesis - and with it, the theory of
evolution itself - is built on sand."
Sorry, Vernon, I strongly disagree. This is not simply an arbitrary
*assumption*. It is a *conclusion* that is based on a mountain of
interlocking empirical considerations.
Let me here make just one point regarding the constancy of radioactive
decay rates. These rates are not independent parameters that can be
modified without severe consequences for the properties and bahavior of
*everything else*. The values of these rates are sensitively related to the
values of nearly all of the fundamental constants that characterize the
universe (like c, h, e, etc.). Changing a decay rate would necessitate
changing one or more of these universal constants. Changing the value of
any one of these constants would change the properties and behavior of *all
matter* and material systems. You cannot have *this* universe with only
nuclear decay rates modified. You would have to have an entirely different
universe altogether, with radically altered properties and behavior for
atoms, molecules, etc. It's an old dilemma, "You can't change just one
thing."
Vernon again: "However, notwithstanding these objections, I look forward to
reading your book."
Thanks,
Howard Van Till