agreeing about a mere creation?

In what ways do you think Christians with different views -- evolutionary
creation, old-earth creation, and young-earth creation, plus "intelligent
design" and variations of each view -- will respond (privately and in
public) to the concept of a "mere creation" consensus-subview that is
epistemologically and spiritually humble, like this one:

    With the current state of knowledge it seems impossible to know with
certainty, so instead of criticizing either type of creation -- totally
natural or with some miraculous-appearing divine action -- as being "less
worthy of God" it seems wise to adopt a humble attitude. Each of us should
admit, like Job, that "surely I speak of things I do not understand, things
too wonderful for me to know" and decide that either way -- whether it
happened with one mode of action or two -- God's plan for
design-and-creation was wonderful and is worthy of our praise.
    Therefore, a proponent of old-earth creation (or young-earth creation)
should be willing to praise God for designing a universe that was totally
self-assembling by natural process, with no formative miracles, in case
this is how He did it. Similarly, a proponent of evolutionary creation
should be willing to praise God for using both modes of creative action,
for cleverly designing nature to produce most phenomena without miracles,
and for powerfully doing miracles when natural process was not sufficient,
since this might be the way He did it.

How will various views respond to this minimal IF-then claim?
If some will disagree, why and with what degree of confidence?

Craig
Received on Thu Jul 28 09:41:45 2005