Maybe for you this means He's more complex and powerful, I just see it as making Him constrained by circumstances and time. That, to me, makes Him smaller and yes puts Him on the sidelines. He's essentially limited by His own creation. I'm sorry but that sounds like an entirely different God to me.
Except that really, that seems to be how He has worked throughout the record of the Bible. Think about it. From your perspective God waited 4,000 years from the advent of sin to the Cross and Resurrection. And because He waited He had to "overlook the former sins" as Romans describes. Why did God wait?
God wanted to work
through humanity, didn't He? For if you think about it, Jesus' death and resurrection would have been valid whether it happened in 33 AD or in the Garden of Eden five seconds after Adam had chomped the wrong fruit. Instead, God waits a few thousand years and (according to you) wipes out the whole planet and starts again with eight people. God waits another thousand years, finds out that "His people" are really the most rebellious and idolatrous of the lot, and sends them into exile for another few centuries. Then and only then is He content to send His Son, when a few thousand years of sin and death and destruction have made a pretty background for His sacrifice. And after that He makes us wait another two millenia at least for His return.
What does that sound like to you? Cut through all the pious talk and it essentially shows a God
limited by the contingencies of human history, and not just limited but
choosing to be limited by the contingencies of human history, and - dare I say it? -
enjoying the challenge of being limited by the contingencies of human history. Why else would God wait four millenia to send salvation and another two to finish the world up? You can call it God's will - but that makes it look an awful lot like God's will is to redeem the world not merely from outside it but
through it as well, subverting the world as much as He is overcoming it. In other words, as if He actually
wants the contingencies and the hard questions to be there, and as if He knows that they don't take one ounce away from His glory.
Jesus' first coming seems constrained enough by circumstances and time, so much that God had to use a census of the whole Roman Kingdom to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem instead of, say, warping them there as He did with Philip. If God would let the very coming of His Incarnation be constrained by circumstances and time, why would He not let the very creation of the world - which was, after all, to be something real in and of itself - be constrained by circumstances and time? Would God be afraid to let the universe undergo something He Himself underwent?
As you know over the years weve had many a conversation and Ive always felt your approach to our discussions was something I enjoyed, valued and respected. I also understand why we both are so passionate about this subject which explains why neither of us can stop where we are in agreement.
Im a rather simple-minded person and try to see things rather plainly, especially when that option is open to me. I agree that science today tries to make assertions that are completely independent of God. As you pointed out, this shouldnt be the case. God should be glorified in everything we do and science is a natural area where we can give Him glory. That was my intent a number of months back when I started the thread (which had nothing to do with evolution) about George Washington Carver. That man did all he did for the glory of God and I thought he was such a wonderful role model for all of us. I dont know if you remember but that thread wasnt well received at all. Part of the reason for starting the thread was to see if creationists and evolutionists might have be able to share some common ground in an area I didnt think would be nearly as divisive. Unfortunately it was anything but that. That experience left a bitter taste in my mouth and was a low point in my time here. It has caused me to reassess other thoughts at reaching across the divide.
I remember that thread, but the basic question still remains: Is it possible to create a scientific
methodology that includes the divine and the supernatural? I don't think so, and creation science itself bears witness to that. It is certainly possible to create a
philosophy of science that is distinctly Christian, that recognizes a holy and personal God undergirding all things and drawing all things towards Himself, in whom and through whom and by whom all things are made. But this philosophy never spills over into the lab. I cannot see God under my microscope, no matter how much I praise and love God for what I
do see. Indeed, that is precisely why science works and why it is so successful. If a Buddhist mechanic and a Muslim mechanic gave me two wildly different prescriptions for a dead car battery I would start to get very suspicious of the whole car thing. When our mechanics employ naturalistic methodology, we think them trustworthy; when our scientists employ naturalistic methodology, should we call them heretics?
The real problem with creation science is that it is trying to fight at a methodological level a fight that really happens at a philosophical level. According to creation science, a science that is able to prove facts X, Y, and Z is somehow more holy or godly or biblical than a science that proves the opposite. But why should that be so? All science at a methodological level, even the ones funded by Christian dollars and cents, "excludes" God anyway.
As to your question what makes evolution any less godless than meteorology, electrostatics, and gravity. Im really not sure why this is difficult to grasp. Those studies have no effect on what the Word of God says, evolution clearly does.
I happen to disagree.
If meteorology has no bearing on the storehouses of snow and hail,
and electrostatics has no bearing on God hurling lightning,
and gravity has no bearing on the earth orbiting the sun,
then evolution has no bearing on Genesis 1 either. It's only fair.
I see it no different than if someone were to tell me my ancestors did x when I know they did y. Proving that they did y doesnt change much with regard to today but that wont keep me from honoring my past by standing up for what I know is the truth. If families will do that for their own honor, how much more should we do likewise for God? Does God need us to do that, no, but I think Hes exalted when we do and isnt that what its all about?
And what if all the historical evidence we did have did indeed point to the fact that your ancestors indeed did y instead of x? Would you not then, to honor your ancestors, figure out why they did y, and figure out why you had always been told that they did x?
In the end it lends credence to what is known by those whose eyes have been opened and more importantly it demonstrates the love and devotion of the followers of the way.
With the world this really isnt much of a concern for me, however among the body of Christ it is. The early church was of one accord and Jesus certainly wanted it to be so.
John 17: 20 23 states:I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
Ephesians 4: 1 - 6 goes on to state:I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Im here in an effort to find unity among Gods children, yet have found the endeavor to be, for the most part, fruitless. Which is why Ive been asking God for an escape from CF(He hasnt given it yet). I truly dont find much fruit being produced here; consensus is rare and even when it does exist there usually are conditions and it becomes diluted.
I know that the fruit of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; I'm not sure who added "uniformity in interpreting the Bible" to the list. And the passage in Ephesians urges us to unite over one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father above all - but not over the Bible?
I understand your effort to find unity. But believe me, you should never lose sight of everything that has already been accomplished. Do you recite the Nicene Creed in church? I wish I did. And if you knew how much ink (and blood!) has been spilled and how many words have been said to reach the consensus of the creeds of the early church, you would realize that so much of your work has already been done for you. People have been allegorically interpreting Genesis since the start of Christianity; it has never affected the unity of the church, certainly not unless one looks for trouble deliberately.
I think I see where youre coming from. I dont like to pit spiritual truth with historical truth and say one is greater than the other. Both are vital components to overall truth and have their place in proper teachings. Ive found proving the historicity of Scripture to a TE to be a futile experience, yet Im compelled to continue trying because the stakes are so high. Not necessarily for the TE (although they exist there too), but the unbeliever. If the unbeliever or nominal believer sees that Scripture can be discounted, minimized or personalized to the point where it is relative to me or my scientific view then it has lost its potency and effectiveness. Thats the last thing I want to see and thats why I fight.
I appreciate historicity too; as I've said, I used to teach a course on Luke and Acts to secondary-school students in church back home, where I liked to talk about details here and there that showed how much a historian Luke really was. But at the same time, nobody was ever converted by a history textbook, were they? Historicity may be cool, but it's hardly vital; people are converted not just because Jesus is real but because He is relevant. I don't know why you should think that "personalizing" the Scriptures is equal to "discounting" or "minimizing" it.
I suspect that this whole issue with relativizing the Scriptures hovers in the fundamentalist mind in pretty much the same way that "Bible bashing" hovers in the non-Christian mind: most people would object to how Christians are bigoted Bible bashers, without being able to recount a time when they were actually bashed and without ever being profoundly damaged by such an incident! I'd pose this question to YECs who fear that we damage our understanding of the Bible:
have you actually ever seen it happen? Have you ever seen a TE here go from evolution and an old earth to fudge anything else in the Bible - and have you ever called them on it? When has a TE here, for example, stated that homosexual acts are not wrong in God's sight? Or that there is no such thing as sin? Or that there are no objective moral standards for right and wrong? Quite frankly, I find a figurative interpretation of the Bible a hundred times more challenging and thought-provoking for the development of my faith than a literal interpretation.
It's amazing what you can learn about yourself here. 
To think I could even remotely put my mind around God, whew, now that's something. Now I've been accused of many things, but that's a first. If nothing else this has shown how completely and utterly different we actually are.
