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

James wrote:

>> "Why not? What do you expect God to do with it...delete it, and

>> put a "this space intentionally left blank" sign?"

Dennis replied:

> This is a very strange response. If God specially created humans, with no

> common biological ancestry, then he would have no need to "delete" the gene.

> It wouldn't be there in the first place. I'm not sure you understand this, but

> your answer to Dennis makes no sense unless you assume common ancestry. So,

> are you assuming that the human genome was assembled/constructed from the

> genome of a non-human primate??

I see your point, but please see mine. I have mentioned an archetype in a previous post - this was the prevalent model pre-Darwin. If one looks at the so-called "tree of life" realistically, you see that it isn't a tree very much at all. All the little connecting lines are not real. They are made up in the minds of Darwinian evolutionists, for the most part. I am not an absolutist here, I accept some forms of evolutionary change, even macroevolution in some organisms. But given the timeline (lack thereof) it is evident to me that Somebody stirred the pot. So do I assume common ancestry? YES, *qualified* by the intervention of God. How much intervention? Well, how much did it take to form the fleshly body that we have from a hominid precursor?

Yes indeed, we can presume that we evolved naturally. That is a presumption, as we do not have the evidence. The extant data show no clear track from hominids to man, and the best guess - from Neanderthals - has DNA evidence indicating they were not from whom man descended, National Geographic’s recent article to the contrary. When you look at that with all the other evidence on hominids, and then look at that with all the other evidence, it is clear to me (at least more evident to me) that neoDarwinian evolution as a continuous process is not enough to explain the raw data that we have in front of us. How many examples of convergent "evolution" (both morphological and molecular) do you need to see before you realize that there must be something (Someone) else at work here? How many so called branches that don't really exist on a tree (its more like a lawn) do you have to (not) see, before you stop believing in the tree? It really is a matter of faith. It took me quite a while to see that the tree was not a tree. If you choose to believe it is, then that's your choice, and it requires faith to believe it...because the evidence isn't there.

I have seen the cladograms. Did you know cladograms evolved (pun intended, lol) from the archetypical model? Yes, I see the relatedness of DNA in related appearing organisms. I am OK with the cladograms, as long as one understands that, for the most part, the connecting points are made-up, do not exist, point to a general relationship, not necessarily a common ancestor. Not just for man, but for most organisms.

> To explain broken genes in otherwise intact genomes, one must choose from among

> a limited set of plausible explanations.

I believe I just did that, above. I would like your comments on that explanation.

> One explanation is that a

> supernatural designer created the genome that way, de novo with no biological

> continuity between that genome and its predecessors. Another explanation is

> that the genome has descended from genomes of common ancestors.

Yes, descent, with Modification. Note the capital "M". :)

> Opting for the

> first explanation creates the questions that Dennis has posed, and your answers

> reflect the rampant confusion at RTB on this important issue.?

I would not call it rampant confusion so much as a point of (sometimes heated) debate. It is a component of the model which does not have as much stability as many of the other components. Nevertheless, the model certainly is not in danger of crumbling because of this point.

> I would suggest that those who prefer the RTB "model" need to get a lot better

> at saying, "that's a good question, and we don't know the answer." Answers

> like "well, it helps primates eat better" will not fool knowledgeable people.?

I think RTB folks are quite good at both admitting weakness in a given area and being humble. I've not seen that in some other circles, although this one (ASA) is pretty good for the most part. The defense of a weak point in the model (which CD is, admittedly) involves presenting alternative hypotheses, evaluating the evidence, and finding the answer that best fits the data, and the model. I present to you the above explanation. If it's wrong, I will accept that, but it's going to take more than "that's wrong!" to convince me.

I must also state that, afaik, the neo-archetypical explanation is at this point mine...I haven't seen it clearly accepted by RTB, although I've presented it in their listserve, tagged to the end of a long post at the end of a long and sometimes heated thread. It is of course not new...as I've stated above.

> The error is this one: that someone

> (like me, or like Dennis, or like Francis Collins) who sees God's natural

> providence as just as important as his "miraculous involvement" is someone who

> might be "denying God." The implication is created through the indefensible

> presumption that "God's handiwork" equates to "miraculous involvement." This

> stance is obnoxiously uncharitable, to say nothing of its theological

> incoherence. If you prefer miraculous intervention as an explanatory

> framework, just state that and let it be. Or if you have strong evidence that

> a particular occurrence or phenomenon bears marks of supernatural intervention,

> then by all means let's hear it. But when you link your preferences or

> opinions to profound issues of whether a Christian is "denying God," you are

> playing a dangerous and foolish game.

I apologize for upsetting you. It is my position that the boundary between miracle and providence is quite artificial. God's involvement is God's involvement. He may work in ways that man can understand, he may work in ways that man doesn't understand (yet), or in ways that appear inconsistent with neoDarwinian evolution. I don't necessarily insist that it is a "miracle", whatever that might be. There are awe-inspiring acts of God, like the virgin birth, Christ walking on water, Christ expelling demons from some poor soul, and the resurrection of Christ. There may well be some explanation for CD that we can understand, but natural selection as the only force operating from abiogenesis to now just doesn't cut it (especially since abiogenesis didn't happen, God created life then). Trying to force something to fit a (natural) model when it doesn't fit that model is the point I am making here, not that you aren't a Christian; although I did want to get your attention. And so I wish to qualify my use of the words natural and supernatural in this way.

Man is built with a drive to understand, to seek explanations that he can understand. God gave us this gift. Without that drive, we wouldn't be seeking answers, knowledge, or Him. I think a large part of the problem is that we (the collective we as Christians) are trying to pigeon-hole something as natural, when the best explanation is supernatural intervention by God. I would state that (for instance) the three to four layers of information encoding in the cell bears the mark of supernatural intervention by God. So does the enormous wealth of convergent evolution data. Does that mean we should stop looking for answers? No. Does that mean we should get huffy and say we are trying to disprove God by trying to disprove a divine intervention mechanism? No. If God did it, and he wants us to find the explanation, then we will. If it is discernable by man, then man can and will discern it. You can start pronouncing GOTG! at me if you will; I will simply pronounce the no-GOTG reply back at you - it takes more faith to believe in strictly natural selection (even with God creating life in the beginning) than it does to believe in God's continuous involvement.

And once again, the distinction there (at the heart of the difference between TE and PC) seems artificial to me, and that is why I am here. We are debating how much God is involved in our world and in nature. We know He is there. We know he Created us. We believe in Christ. The biggest points are ones we agree on. If you admit that abiogenesis could not occur (and you should) then you admit already that the neoDarwinian argument has a fatal flaw. God is involved. OK. So how much is he involved? "Well it would be really cool if He was smart enough to just set life in motion and let it evolve naturally" one might say. That might be true, but you are pre-supposing that is how God *wants* to do it. The evidence simply does not support that mechanism in it's entirety. I think it would be really cool if God brooded over his Creation, watched it, nurtured it, directed it, and kept an eye on things. I don't think it shows God to be any weaker for doing so, and I think it is wrong for the TE position to presume this. And I think both of these last points are based on how we *want* God to be. How God *is*, may be somewhere in between, or something else.

I'm going to have to stop there for today - John W I haven't forgotten your posts - have some things to do before work.

James Patterson

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Matheson
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:03 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)

Hi James--

Dennis 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?"

You wrote: "Why not? What do you expect God to do with it...delete it, and put a "this space intentionally left blank" sign?"

This is a very strange response. If God specially created humans, with no common biological ancestry, then he would have no need to "delete" the gene. It wouldn't be there in the first place. I'm not sure you understand this, but your answer to Dennis makes no sense unless you assume common ancestry. So, are you assuming that the human genome was assembled/constructed from the genome of a non-human primate?

To explain broken genes in otherwise intact genomes, one must choose from among a limited set of plausible explanations. One explanation is that a supernatural designer created the genome that way, de novo with no biological continuity between that genome and its predecessors. Another explanation is that the genome has descended from genomes of common ancestors. Opting for the first explanation creates the questions that Dennis has posed, and your answers reflect the rampant confusion at RTB on this important issue.

I would suggest that those who prefer the RTB "model" need to get a lot better at saying, "that's a good question, and we don't know the answer." Answers like "well, it helps primates eat better" will not fool knowledgeable people.

You end your post with this troubling statement regarding "God's miraculous involvement" in creation, which is very typical of Christian design theorists of various stripes:

 "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."

James, this is the damaging error of so much of creationism, and it's one reason why I hold RTB in very low esteem. The error is this one: that someone (like me, or like Dennis, or like Francis Collins) who sees God's natural providence as just as important as his "miraculous involvement" is someone who might be "denying God." The implication is created through the indefensible presumption that "God's handiwork" equates to "miraculous involvement." This stance is obnoxiously uncharitable, to say nothing of its theological incoherence. If you prefer miraculous intervention as an explanatory framework, just state that and let it be. Or if you have strong evidence that a particular occurrence or phenomenon bears marks of supernatural intervention, then by all means let's hear it. But when you link your preferences or opinions to profound issues of whether a Christian is "denying God," you are playing a dangerous and foolish game.

Steve Matheson

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 29 07:08:18 2008