Paul Braterman wrote:
Let me surprise everyone by leaping to Marc's defence. if I understand him correctly, he is enlisting his quotation in support of an interesting philosophical position, that goes by the name of occasionalism, and is particularly associated with the name of the 11 century Persian-Arabic philosopher al Ghazali. According to this, natural Law is the expression of the divine will, every incident of physical causation is the occasion for that will to manifest itself, and the problem of induction is solved by reference to the consistency of the divine will, which guarantees the consistency of natural law.
Needless to say, I don't believe a word of this (and I'm quite sure that Paul and Timothy, whom Marc quotes, had no inkling of such philosophical subtleties), but it is a coherent position that reconciles science and religion, and indeed could be said to ennoble science for the believer, since the laws of science are expressions of the divine will.
I'm not sure Marc is saying this at all because creationism is based on Biblical literalism. Miracles can only be invoked where and when the Bible says they occurred, otherwise the Bible is not being interpreted literally. As a consequence, the creationists have to resort to "scientific" arguments to fill in the "gaps". That itself is a rejection of divine will as an explanation of consistancy. The whole shooting match of creationism is as much a rejection of miracles as based on them.
As far as I can make out, the arguments of Adnan Oktar and his followers are far, far closer to the "philosophy" of occasionalism. It's why some of them accept the "Big Bang" and reject Intelligent Design.
I also assume that the rejection of ID by so many (most) creationists is, de facto, a rejection of occasionalism.