I believe in God, I believe in the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly), and I believe that God is the creator of the universe. But I don't get all caught up in the whole creationism v. evolution brouhaha, because, unlike most people in the whole wide world, I don't see the two concepts as mutually exclusive. I believe in them both. I see no reason why evolution can't peacefully coexist with the power of the priesthood. I think it's more often than not that God uses scientifically explainable methods to achieve his divine purposes.

Take, for example, a TV show I vaguely recall seeing many years ago. It showed how some researchers had figured out how a highly localized tornado or something could have parted the Red Sea and allowed the people of Israel to cross. I remember the program presenting this theory as evidence that it wasn't a miracle; it was just a huge coincidence. But I say: how do you expect God to work a miracle like that? A highly localized tornado would have been the perfect manifestation of God's power in that instance. I'm not saying I believe the tornado story. I'm just saying I don't find it inconsistent with the Bible.

But this article is silly. Just plain silly. It tells of researchers who have determined that twice within 500 years on either side of Jesus's birth, a small part of the Sea of Galilee might have gotten cold enough to freeze over. Therefore, Jesus didn't walk on water; he walked on ice.

First of all, I'm puzzled that anyone would even go to the trouble of looking into this. I mean, if you wanted to disprove that particular story, isn't it easier to say, "People can't walk on water. The story is false."? Do you have to go looking for a far-fetched explanation of it?

But even assuming that the Sea of Galilee DID have ice in it at that particular time (a highly unlikely proposition, even by these researchers' reckoning), there's still the following that doesn't seem to be accounted for:

* Jesus started out on shore, and walked out into the middle of the lake. So it would have to be a huge portion of the lake frozen over from edge to middle, firm enough to support someone walking on it.
* The disciples had left the shore at the same place in a boat only a few hours earlier. And of course, boats don't travel on ice, so the ice would have had to form really, really quickly.
* Jesus initially got at least close enough to talk to the people in the boat. Say that's 30 feet away, it's odd that the boat is floating that close to the ice, and that the ice that close to the edge is still strong enough to support Jesus.
* Peter jumped out of the boat and immediately began walking. So now the ice is going to have to be immediately adjacent to the boat. Essentially, the boat is trapped in ice. But it's been sailing for hours!
* Peter started to sink. What, his ice block suddenly couldn't support his weight? It started to melt?
* Jesus lifted Peter out of the water. So now Jesus's ice is strong enough to support TWO people, and he has sure enough footing on the slippery ice at the edge of the water to pull Peter out of the water. (Did he get down and sprawl, like we're told to do in an ice rescue situation?)
* And then Jesus and Peter got into the boat. Again, the ice is now right up against the boat.

So in sum, I'm generally not opposed to scientific explanations for manifestations of God's power. But I'm not buying this one. It doesn't explain it like the tornado explains the parting of the Red Sea. I'm sorry, but I'm still going to have to believe that Jesus actually performed a miracle, and that the miracle's scientific basis at the very least did not involve ice.