>David Taylor earlier claimed that evolution was too blunt an instrument for
>the Creator of the cosmos to have employed. However, when the tool of
>evolution is viewed as above by Howard Van Till, it doesn't seem so blunt,
>does it?
>
>So, the essence of this issue seems to be one of differing perspectives (is
>the glass half-full or half-empty?). Howard's perspective seems to be that
>if God created using an evolutionary tool, this reveals a creation that has
>been touched by "God's unbounded generosity and unfathomable creativtiy."
>On the other hand, David's perspective is that an evolutionary tool doesn't
>sifficiently reveal God's creativity.
I think that one of the best arguments that Howard has to offer in this
regard is that anti-evolutionists (AE's) must be thrilled, glad and
celebratory when science discovers something God CAN NOT DO!!!!!!!! The
following is my interpretation (not Howard's)
God can't command a fish to turn into an amphibian (cheers, whistles,
applause from AEs.)
God can't command command an amphibian to turn into a reptile (whoops and
hollers from the AE's)
God can't make a reptile become a mammal (AEs give a standing ovation for
God's limitations!!!)
God can't use time to accomplish his purpose( high fives all around from
the AE's)
THis is a sad and non-omnipotent God that they want.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution