RE: agreeing about a mere creation?

So you want to open Pandora's box just a tiny bit? Okay, just put the
caveat "God willing" after every scientific principle and law. I'm sure
that will satisfy scientists everywhere. All conclusions reached on every
scientific experiment will carry a tentatative label because you never know
when some supernatural event tainted the results.

> Dick Fischer says,
> >If God intervenes from time to time,... what was He doing when flaws and
> >deleterious malfunctions occurred?
>
> Maybe God "intervenes" -- by guiding natural process or doing miracles
> -- sometimes but not always. God isn't constrained by an all-or-none
> approach and is free to make decisions, so "slippery slope" concerns about
> theology don't seem appropriate.
>
> >The other logic flaw is that if we invoke divine intervention in life
> >processes why not advocate for special acts of creation in physical
> >processes too?
>
> Maybe SOME natural processes (physical or biological) -- but not ALL

--
> are sufficient to accomplish what God wants to happen, so God intervenes
in
> some situations but not others.  Again, an either-or choice (either always
> or never) isn't the only option.
>
> >An intervening Creator has no bounds.  And in the face of that, science
> >can't exist.
>
>     Reliable science requires a world that is USUALLY natural, but does it
> have to be ALWAYS natural?
>
> Craig