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

James,

You said:

> If God had custom designed the DNA of man (or any organism for that
> matter) to be “perfect” then it would have been like putting a signpost > there stating “God was here”

So this seems to be saying that God allowed this "appearance of imperfection" to throw seekers off the trail of finding God in His creation. I think we agree that He doesn't prove himself in His creation although He easily could have, but I think it is a stretch to take it this far and say He goes out of His way to deceive.

> but unless and until you find all the transitional intermediates, > including that missing link, it remains potentially true, in my opinion.

This reveals the creationist position boils down to faith in spite of the evidence and with an impossible standard for disproof, just like YEC, and why it is therefore falsifiable and anti-science.

Whereas in contrast TE/EC accepts the scientific evidence as a valid witness of God's creative activities without subjecting it to any specific theological or doctrinal presuppositions, and therefore can be compatible with science, a much superior position from which to engage and influence our culture.

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 10/28/08, 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 6:53 AM
> You said: Why do you thing the actual gene has to be
> completely gone to
> prove God's existence or action?
>
> > There is no reason for the GULO pseudogene to be
> present in the human
> genome.
>
>
>
> Yes there is. If God had custom designed the DNA of man (or
> any organism for
> that matter) to be "perfect" then it would have
> been like putting a signpost
> there stating "God was here". I think we live in
> a time when the evidence
> for design is becoming clearer and clearer, but man has
> known for centuries
> about the "fitness" of nature to support life.
> However, God doesn't leave
> signposts, because if he did, then we would not have near
> the choice-making
> capacity that we do now. As a matter of fact, one could
> argue that we
> wouldn't have any choice, if the evidence for design
> was so clear. It is my
> position that the evidence of design is clear to those that
> choose to see
> it, but can be explained away, at least superficially, by
> those who choose
> not to see it (*not* saying you fit that picture sir, that
> would be more
> like Dawkins). The question here is: how DID God design DNA
> to do what he
> wanted it to do, and when? How would the DNA be shaped to
> create man; how
> would God do it? It is purely presupposition on the part of
> TE to say that
> it would be a "natural" process from beginning to
> end, because it *does not*
> fit the extant data.
>
>
>
> > It's only there because it was once useful - and
> the fact that other
> primates have the same mutation
>
> > in it means we have inherited it from a common
> ancestor.
>
>
>
> Not necessarily so. We *may* have inherited it from some
> common ancestor. It
> may equally be possible that we are simply related
> genetically to some
> common ancestral archetype, that God used during the
> creative process. I
> realize that theory is very long out of use (precedes
> Darwinism), but unless
> and until you find all the transitional intermediates,
> including that
> missing link, it remains potentially true, in my opinion.
> And there are a
> whole lot of missing transitional intermediates (not) out
> there. J
>
>
>
> So, the loss of it may have been providential - but that
> still doesn't
> change the fact that it is compelling evidence for common
> descent.
>
>
>
> Admitted.
>
>
> I do see the handiwork of God in nature. You would seem to
> say that anything
> "natural" isn't part of God's handiwork.
> That seems an odd position to take.
> I see everything as God's handiwork. Did you follow the
> Timaeus threads? We
> went over very similar ground, repeatedly.
>
>
>
> No, unfortunately. I wish I had time. I don't believe
> that nature isn't part
> of God's handiwork, but I equally don't believe
> that it *has* to be natural
> to be God's handiwork.
>
>
> > I have no problem with miracles (why is this such a
> common misconception
> about ECs)?
>
>
>
> Because it's apparent sir, in the insistence on a
> natural mechanism for CD,
> and evolution, when the model as a whole has many faults
> and holes.
>
>
>
> > What "gaping holes" did you have in mind?
>
>
>
> A short list would include abiogenesis, the Cambrian
> explosion, the various
> near global destruction of all flora/fauna and its return,
> transitional
> fossils (I admit there appear to be a few, but not nearly
> as much as there
> should be), the lack of enough time for evolution to
> happen, the hundreds
> examples of convergence especially at the molecular/genetic
> level, and the
> fact that DNA can't encode for information at the
> secondary or tertiary
> levels, yet it's obviously present. There's more,
> but that's enough to
> start.
>
>
>
> > Also, how do you see OEC as superior to TE based on
> the data?
>
>
>
> Because it addresses those holes.

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 18:36:03 2008