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

 Would science, being what it is, even be able to pick up on this guided
verses unguided evolution. How would you know? There are no tests.

Steve

 -----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:56 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)

  Hey John,

  I'm probably best classified as a TE myself. One thing I'm curious of,
though - I accept CD in a biological sense. But I've seen criticisms by
scientists (This was directed at Behe in particular, in this case) where
it's said that if any particular species was directed/guided, CD would be
'broken' because the concept is based on an uninterrupted, unguided view of
evolution. Ergo, guidance would constitute a break.

  Keep in mind, I'm not a scientist, and I can tell right off that any
scientific view of evolution as 'unguided' in such a sense is no longer
purely 'scientific'. But if there was some kind, any kind, of outside,
intelligent intervention with humanity at some point in their developmental
history, would that in your view change CD's relevance?

  On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too big for
its britches sometimes, isn't >it John?

          No I don't think so. I too was an RTB PC like James for years
until I read Francis Collins and found someone who dealt with the scientific
evidence honestly. That is why I say psuedogenes are the smoking gun for CD.
Once you accept that, the only intellectually honest conclusion is TE, which
is where I came to, albeit kicking and screaming.

          I understand and empathize with the RTB PC position and I know
giving it up is painful, but it just doesn't work.

          And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE
is not a miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed
release one. TE and OEC are not that far apart on most issues except this
very one but it is a major one. It means the difference between science and
faith, and relevance and scorn.

          But I will rephrase my use of "'the scientific and thinking
community" to "the rational and thinking community". I know there are
exceptions like YEC including scientists but again I contend that the only
rational conclusion of the evidence of CD is TE. All this hand waving and
appeals to "appearance of imperfection" arguments are embarassing and just
really immature.

          Thanks

          John

          --- On Tue, 10/28/08, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

            From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>

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

            To: asa@calvin.edu, "James Patterson"
<james000777@bellsouth.net>, john_walley@yahoo.com
            Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 6:49 PM

                  John Walley wrote:
                  "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."

                  'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too
big for its britches sometimes, isn't it John?

                  No, I don't agree with your hypothetical appeal to 'the
scientific and thinking community.' There are many thinkers and scientists
where I live who acept the miracle of humanity's uniqueness. Surely, in any
case, wrt your appeal, you'd have to properly ask a sociologist and not a
natural scientist about 'the community', the former who actually study this
instead of simply guessing.

                  And anyway, what's wrong with humanity being deemed a
'miracle'? This would seem to be quite consistent with the Abrahamic faiths
(quite a large percentage of the world's population; 'scientists' being only
a very, very small part). One can only imagine that if the terms 'evolved
miracle' were substituted for 'created miracle' you'd be quite fine with it.

                  This is why James could suggest that TE and OEC are not so
far apart after all. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and
bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

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 23:44:12 2008