Every American evangelical is familiar with the phrases "I just don't have a peace about it" or "Let me pray about it." To many these comments seem deeply pious and spiritual, but they can just as easily mask the sin of a lazy and indecisive Christian. This is particularly a problem among Christian men, who often are paralyzed for months or years about decisions ranging from wedding engagements to career choices because they are still "seeking a word from the Lord."How did we get to the point where, in seeking a word from the Lord, we ignore the Word from the Lord?
Now, of course, I don’t actually think for a second that naturalistic meteorology actually undermines Christianity. People still pray about the weather, even though they know that weather is caused by natural processes. Belief in natural processes, and belief in God’s action in the world, are simply not in conflict for these people. If God can act through natural processes, then a natural explanation of something is not a threat to the belief system. ...What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology.This is nothing more than the tired old end-around run in which any acceptance of the laws of physics is equated with acceptance of naturalism. If you can accept that God works through the laws of physics that produce tomorrow's rain, then there is no reason to not expect Him to use those same laws to turn a wolf-like creature into a whale. There are at least two problems with their argument: 1) the question is not whether or not God can use the laws He created to work out His will and, 2) smoke and mirrors are not required to demonstrate how meteorology works. Also check Steve Wagner's post at STR.
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer, which I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.... The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."But," as the Darwinists will claim, "biological organisms are not like a watch!" Per the journal Structure, Recent Cyanobacterial Kai Protein Structures Suggest a Rotary Clock. HT: ID the Future