Dan, your views on miracles are interesting. A few years back, I used to have a few beers and lively discussion with an Anglican preacher, at the local pub. He reckoned his particular faith didn't hold with miracles.
His logic was that God was perfect. Being perfect, He set up a perfect system, which worked perfectly according to His wishes.
If He had to suspend -or break- His own perfect laws to create a different outcome, that would imply a lack of foresight; and that would not be perfect, would it?

Grim,
The position you’ve elegantly described is known classically as deism. Deism was a popular position, especially in some educated circles, in the late 17 Century to mid 18th Century. The first three presidents of the US claimed to be deists.

Deism is often described as God winding up the universe, like a clock, then letting it run. God doesn’t interfere. Hence, no miracles. Critics say that since the universe is closed to outside intervention, then everything within the universe is simply running to a predetermined plan. As such, even human beings as part of that plan cannot affect significant change to it. As all things are predetermined, human free will disappears and all ethical meaning is lost.

Deist ideas were promoted by John Locke among others. Some have alleged that Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, leaned towards deism. Others say not. Both Locke and Newton held most of the traditional Christian doctrines.

David,
To clarify, when I said God answers prayer, I didn’t mean to imply always or immediately. And I didn’t mean to restrict answered prayer to Christians.

You’re right to say that some of Jesus’ prayers were not answered, at least not straight away. He prayed for church unity. Now that would require miraculous intervention. Hopefully we’re working towards it.

I see you’re a naturalist, or at least claim naturalism is consistent with true scientific theory. I would say that the scientific method is pretty useful and would work for anyone who applied it regardless of whether they were theists or naturalists.

And I don’t see how or when scientific theory is ever going to conflict with theism or supernaturalism. Especially so, given that the scientific method was developed in the centuries when the Christian world view was dominant (from Bacon through Newton and after). Scientific laws were viewed as normative operations by which God sustained the universe, while still being free to suspend those laws as he chose.

You have given no reason why naturalism and science should preferably be aligned. What if some evidence conflicts with naturalist assumptions (ID)?

George,
Technically you should have said ‘Sunday to Friday’ rather than ‘Monday to Saturday’.

I don’t feel uneasy about sharing most of my DNA with chimps and quite a fair amount of my DNA with tomatoes. I am more grateful (especially for the latter) than surprised as the biochemical similarities mean now I’ve got something to eat.

I might feel awkward if I shared no genetic similarity with chimps. For this might imply that there were two independent creators, while I’m used to accepting that there is only one.

Dan S de Merengue asked, "What if some evidence conflicts with naturalist assumptions (ID)?"

Dear Dan,

If credible evidence that challenged naturalist assumptions was presented one should examine the evidence. If the evidence should be substantiated than one must abandon the naturalist assumptions.

However, I know of no such evidence. Belief in any form of supernatural regardless of how many share that belief is not evidence.

Dan S,

>>Technically you should have said ‘Sunday to Friday’ rather than ‘Monday to Saturday’.<<
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made“ (Genesis 2:2)

>>I don’t feel uneasy about sharing most of my DNA with chimps<<
I never implied you did.

Hey Dan, I thank you kindly for the history lesson. I was actually more interested in what you believe.
I take it you favour a slightly messier creation where God, rather like an old steam engineer, is constantly monitoring, checking gauges, adjusting valves, oil can always in hand...
I'm also interested in your views of the mechanics of creation. If the world is not as old as earth scientists believe, were all the old fossils planted, as deliberate red herrings?
I have to admit, the inflationary model of big bang theory seems to allow for -at least the possibility of- divine intervention.