RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)

James,

You wrote:

>God created the heavens and the earth. First miracle.

>There is no LUCA, there was no pre-biotic soup (Schidlowski, 1988), there >wasn't enough time or the right stuff for life to evolve. God created >life. Second miracle.

>God (somehow) created man. Third miracle.

There is no need or reason to combine your second and third miracles. It could have all been one if the natural processes and intelligence needed to guide life to man was all embedded in the second. This takes nothing away from God or theology and is most consistent with the science.

In contrast, your insisting that man had to be a separate third miracle is in conflict with the science, specifically the evidence for CD and is what earns Christianity the scorn of the scientific and thinking community. And it is solely based on a desired theology and literal reading of Genesis that is totally superfluous and unnecessary.

This is why it matters.

John

--- On Mon, 10/27/08, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 11:38 PM
> Interesting thread!
>
>
>
> Dennis Venema [Dennis.Venema@twu.ca] wrote:
>
>
>
> > It may be that forcing us to include vitamin C in our
> diet does make for
>
> > healthier humans in general - but why then have the
> remains of a clearly
>
> > once-functional gene for Vit C biosynthesis present in
> our genome?
>
>
>
> Why not? What do you expect God to do with it...delete it,
> and put a "this
> space intentionally left blank" sign? J
>
>
>
> > If lack of Vit C synthesis is the goal, why not just
> exclude this enzyme
> from the genome all together?
>
>
>
> I believe that's what happened, functionally. Why do
> you thing the actual
> gene has to be completely gone to prove God's existence
> or action? Why do
> you insist on God's involvement being opaque to you,
> instead of transparent?
> How can you determine whether this was a providential act
> of God, or a
> supernatural act of God, given that?
>
>
>
> > Why have evidence for a previously functional version
> (in the same genomic
> area as in other mammals)?
>
>
>
> Once again, why not? I don't think it is wrong to
> believe in the relatedness
> of organisms. I think the genetic evidence is clear. I also
> believe that God
> created man in his own image. That may very well be a
> spiritual only image.
> However, it was by God's action that man was created.
>
>
>
> Whether or not man was created:
>
>
>
> a. Directly from the dust of the earth by special creative
> (supernatural)
> works of God, 20K - 100K years ago
>
> b. From special creative (supernatural) works of God on
> some poor
> unsuspecting hominid (who was once dust), 20K - 100K years
> ago,
>
> c. From (natural/providential) evolutionary processes
> working on the genome
> of hominids, who evolved from X, who evolved from Y, back
> to when God first
> (supernaturally) created life on this planet 3.9 BYA,
>
>
>
> man was still created by God. As far as I can tell, it gets
> down to a
> philosophical difference. TE's believe that God should
> not have to
> "intervene" in what he set in motion to
> "fix" evolution - this gives the
> impression that it was broken, and therefore God is not
> perfect. OEC's
> believe that it's not "fixing" something
> broken, it is that God is actively
> involved in our world (and our lives) pretty much all the
> time. And yet both
> camps believe in both providence and the supernatural power
> of God, it's
> just a question of how much of which! I think the
> distinction is artificial
> at some level. When I was in the TE camp, I always used the
> phrase "stirring
> the pot". I think it fits.
>
>
>
> So I ask the question here, that I asked in another thread.
>
>
>
> What is perfection, in the context of an evolving creation?
> Why is it that
> some cannot see (or refuse to admit) the gaping holes in
> evolutionary
> theory, that are glaringly obvious to others? I have a BS
> in Biology, it was
> my major...and I was TE for years. I see and admit that the
> OEC model has
> flaws. All models do. In my opinion, it is the better
> model...better than
> TE. I admit that CD is a strong argument for TE, but it is
> by *no* means the
> critical issue that some make it out to be. I think we are
> related to
> chimps. And dogs. And dandelions, and bacteria. I don't
> have a problem with
> that, and I know that some OEC (and especially YEC) folks
> do. I just do not
> see the continuity of the data, from point A (LUCA) to
> point Z (man).
>
>
>
> God created the heavens and the earth. First miracle.
>
>
>
> There is no LUCA, there was no pre-biotic soup
> (Schidlowski, 1988), there
> wasn't enough time or the right stuff for life to
> evolve. God created life.
> Second miracle.
>
>
>
> God (somehow) created man. Third miracle.
>
>
>
> God did all the other miracles in the Bible. Including
> those real important
> ones, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ.
> Forth and fifth
> miracles.
>
>
>
> There. You don't have to believe in any other miracles
> for the moment. Just
> leave it at that. You can even argue about abiogenesis if
> you insist on "we
> don't know what happened". We still have miracles.
> They've happened. And so
> why do you insist on *further* restricting God's
> miraculous involvement, if
> you already believe in the supernatural power of God?
>
>
>
> If you don't see the handiwork of God in nature, then I
> worry that you are
> choosing not to see it. And if you are choosing not to see
> it, I worry that
> you are denying God.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 28 18:19:02 2008