I know it's off topic, but the Bible says no such thing. I no longer believe in the prima facie Genesis account of creation. But when I did, I was very interested in such questions. And it ain't in there.

This particular argument is one of the silliest out there, revealing a wholesale misunderstanding of what christian theology actually says and the implications which follow.

You seem to be going back to the "the Christian God couldn't possibly intervene in His creation" interpretation of Christian theology.

First, let me say that I am not convinced that God did intervene in His creation. It will not surprise me at all if laws of nature are not uncovered which are carefully tuned so that man, or something very like man, is the inevitable and necessary result. IE, I do not find it theologically offensive to suggest that God is so smart that He set the whole thing in motion from day one so that what we have is the natural result. I will only add that if such is discovered, it will be because more laws of nature are uncovered than have been uncovered so far.

Second, let me rehearse that according to Christian theology, God has intervened in His creation. God intervening in His creation is pretty close to an accurate definition of miracle. Further, the incarnation of Christ is clearly an intervention on God's part according to Christian theology.

Therefore, it is theologically unacceptable to suggest that God intervene in his creation is theologically unacceptable.

However, God created a timeline, and His interaction with that timeline has points in time. Though God is timeless, the date that Christ died is fixed in history.

By the same token, if biology does require saltations, then those saltations happened at some point within our understanding of time.

Sure, it is fixed in history. But history is written by beings trapped in time. When one looks at this or that evolutionary leap and concludes an imperfect god who must tinker, one puts God in a time-box, and that's a big mistake. Our view of what is real to God is but a facet of his own, for we lack a whole perspective of eternal reality.

This particular argument is one of the silliest out there, revealing a wholesale misunderstanding of what christian theology actually says and the implications which follow.

I think it would be really hard to find a school board announce, "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits." For a school board to make such an announcement would be really dumb.

Nevertheless, its very easy to find christian school boards that basically announce they are going to teach IDism in order to promote christianity. People on school boards generally aren't aware of the legal consequences of such statements, so I would expect members of an aggressively atheist school board to make statements about how they are replacing God with Darwin, or something of the sort.

If you observe the goings on in the courts recently, you may come to the conclusion (I have) that the resistance to ID, the claiming that ID is unacceptable because ID is religion is good proof that "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits."

Then you don't really understand constitutional law. Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is a conservative republican appointed by President Bush, and a Lutheran, not an atheist.

However, God created a timeline, and His interaction with that timeline has points in time. Though God is timeless, the date that Christ died is fixed in history.

By the same token, if biology does require saltations, then those saltations happened at some point within our understanding of time.

Your first post indicates to me that you may be forgetting the 'eternal God' part of the Christian world view. That is, Yahweh is without beginning or end. He is not bound by time so it therefore follows that he encompasses all of history and there is no 'tinkering' from God's point of view. He doesn't see some error, then plan (future) to fix it. He existed before during and after what is being called tinkering. God has no past, nor a future for his nature encompasses both.

To sum, I categorically reject the premise God is bound by time, therefore what we may perceive as intervention to solve some present problem for some future outcome is not, at least from an eternal perspective. (I would add this is also why I reject pre-destination as an argument against free-will, we choose in the moment, God exists outside time and already knows how we will choose)

I think it would be really hard to find a school board announce, "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits." For a school board to make such an announcement would be really dumb. Therefore the analysis must be the "if it walks like a duck" kind of analysis. If you observe the goings on in the courts recently, you may come to the conclusion (I have) that the resistance to ID, the claiming that ID is unacceptable because ID is religion is good proof that "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits."

But evolutionary theory wouldn't be included to glorify God

I see you disagree with Krauze as well.

it is pushed by atheists for the opposite reason - because it reduces the need for a God. And this isn't done on the basis of the science - which in my experience is often inaccurate until you get beyond high school level. It is nonetheless not a "religiously neutral" position.

I will give you the opposite challenge to Krauze's; show me one U.S. school board dominated by atheists which instituted the teaching of evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits.

Hi Art,

"Um, in the snippets provided, I see no indications that Murphy, Van Till, and Miller are using "their theology to dictate the findings of science"."

Sure they do. They're using their theology to determine which conclusions science should reach to satisfy them. That's every bit as much "dictating the findings of science" as what Morris was doing.

Let's look at the snippet from Miller:

"The irony is that only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves."4

Fact is, Krauze, Miller (and the others you quote) are using reflections on science to help shape their theology. Just about the opposite of what you are claiming.

(This isn't another PWW thing, is it? I wish youse guys would let the rest of us know when you are taking your God-given liberties … )