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

There is a marked difference between a question and a statement. I asked a question, "What scientific questions creation by TE answers that cannot be answered by ordinary, non-theistic evolutionary theory?" I did not make a statement, "This is the same mistake that Moorad made by he insisted that TE ought to be different from non-TE science. It doesn't."

Your definition of science will not do. "I define science simply as what can be observed from the natural world..." I just saw a ghost, is that science?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of John Walley
Sent: Thu 10/30/2008 9:29 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)

> First off, are you using "science" as defined by
> the National Academy of Science? I should hope not, as they are heavily > weighted with atheists, and insist on methodological if not metaphysical > naturalism.

This is the same mistake that Moorad made by he insisted that TE ought to be different from non-TE science. It doesn't. I don't care who tries to hijack science for their ideological ends, whether it is Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, allowing ourselves to be forced to choose sides and coming up with you own version of science to combat the other side is not the solution. We should let science speak for itself and follow the evidence whereever it leads like RTB and ID say, even if it is not where we want it to lead.

I define science simply as what can be observed from the natural world and I no longer see MN as a threat to the faith, although I know why you do as I used to as well. If God created the earth and man then there shouldn't be any conflict between the scriptures and the record of nature like RTB says.

The problem is both sides want science to "prove" their positions for them but I have news for you, for the Christian side, God is not going to honor that. He resisted the Pharisees provoking Him to prove Himself to them and He has chosen likewise to not let Himself be "proven" in nature. There are enough clues for the honest seekers and "those that have eyes to see" but still no "proof" for you to use to bludgeon the unbelievers into intellectual submission which is the faulty assumption of ID and RTB.

This is why as Schwarzwald lamented the other day that TE's are not as vocal in evangelism as he would like them to be although I know some would disagree with me on this, because once you see how God has "hidden" himself in creation to an extent to protect the unbelievers, the game changes and it will take some wind out of your overzealous evangelistic sails. I believe, and I think you will come to see from the evidence, that the design argument was intended to be a defensive weapon instead of an offensive weapon.

I know by you finding your way here via RTB that you are an honest seeker of truth and not a YEC but that is not what I am saying nor is it the issue at hand. You and RTB assume that man had to be created by separate direct intervention (your 3rd miracle) but that is only based on you reading that into the Genesis account. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim like a disruption of the DNA etc, and in fact there is evidence in the DNA to suggest the opposite. This is where RTB abandons the high road of "science" and unfortunately succumbs to dogma like YEC.
This is why you and RTB are defensive on this point and have only your speculations to offer, just like YEC. Your position could only be true if we spin the evidence and come up with some bizarre scenario that borders on deception.

All of this discredits Christianity in the eyes of the educated public and it is only to justify a literal reading of the creation of man which is not necessary. Man does not have to be created by sudden, fiat miracle to be in the image of God or for the Bible to be true or for the atheistic baggage of Darwnism to be false which is what I know what your motivations are. Challenging CD and insisting on a 3rd miracle is the wrong battle to fight and the wrong hill to die on because it is not consistent with the science.

I can't show you "that the process from cyanobacteria to man occurred by only the natural processes that God sat in motion with the creation of the first life" but I don't see why or how that couldn't be the case or what the objection would be to it. I find it ironic that RTB sees the natural processes such as the laws of physics that explain the formation of the universe as the "fingerprint of God" but when it comes to life they insist on direct intervention and special creation in order for God to get credit for it.

Simply, we agree on design and God being responsible for the creation of life. Our differences boil down to to how and when we think He was involved. I contend this is an unknown, therefore the need to exercise restraint. It is counterproductive to the cause to come up with scenarios that are inconsistent with the evidence to defend God and support our cause. I am at peace now letting God reveal Himself how He has chosen to.

Thanks

John

--- On Thu, 10/30/08, 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: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:36 AM
> John wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> (1st: creation of universe, 2nd: creation of life, 3rd:
> creation of man)
>
>
>
> If I understand your point, then you have very little
> difference from my
> point of view. It is simply of matter of how much God is
> involved. However,
> I must differ with your statement "most consistent
> with the science". That
> statement (as are my statements to the contrary) is where
> we part ways.
> First off, are you using "science" as defined by
> the National Academy of
> Science? I should hope not, as they are heavily weighted
> with atheists, and
> insist on methodological if not metaphysical naturalism.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> First, I am not a YEC, if that is what you are thinking.
> The title of this
> thread no longer reflects the content of the discussion. I
> am OEC or PC,
> whichever you prefer to call it, but I am, on the spectrum
> of belief,
> closest towards the TE position than many if not most of my
> kind. I think
> there is a posting up a ways from someone who seems to
> think I am YEC.
> Perish the thought.
>
>
>
> Second, beyond what YEC has done to earn the scorn of the
> scientific
> community (and it is plenty), I will not apologize for my
> position as a
> Christian. Those in the scientific arena who insist on
> worshiping the
> neoDarwinian model have more faith in what they believe
> (because the
> evidence just isn't there, so it must be faith, lol),
> than what I do.
>
>
>
> Third, I do not *insist*, but simply believe that it is
> most consistent with
> the evidence. If you can show me (and CD doesn't
> convince me) that the
> process from cyanobacteria to man occurred by only the
> natural processes
> that God sat in motion with the creation of the first life,
> I *will* be
> convinced. I am not PC because I just want to be, I am in
> this camp because
> that's where the evidence points to. There are numerous
> points along the way
> where neoDarwinian processes do not provide an answer to
> the questions at
> hand, or are just plain wrong. I've already pointed a
> few of them out.
>
>
>
> James 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"
>
>
>
> John said:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> I don't think it is deception at all. That's just
> how it happened - if you
> add God more actively involved in in the process, helping
> the process along
> (instead of distant), then what would you get? Does God
> need to
> custom-define a gene? No, if he wants the psi-Gulo gene
> off, then as far as
> I know, the way it was done was the best way. Define
> "best" or define
> "perfection". To say that the way it was done
> doesn't match God's will is
> just as much a presumption as it is to say that it is
> exactly God's will. I
> *think* it's the way God wanted it. I admit it looks
> quite a bit like we
> have a common ancestor, because with God in the picture,
> there probably *is*
> a common ancestor. I have no problem with that, it's
> just the naturalist bit
> all the way from a bacteria that doesn't work. If you
> want to believe that
> God could "naturally" direct a bacterium to
> evolve into man over the time
> span available, then you have a lot of faith in
> that...because where's the
> evidence for it occurring that way? The model says one
> thing, and the data
> says quite another, I don't care how many high school
> textbooks get printed
> saying the contrary.
>
>
>
> James said:
>
> >> but unless and until you find all the transitional
> intermediates,
>
> >> including that missing link, it remains
> potentially true, in my opinion.
>
>
>
> John said:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Actually your position boils down to faith as well, because
> (for example)
> you have faith that the Cambrian explosion is consistent
> with random
> mutation/natural selection, when it clearly is not, you
> have faith that
> convergent evolution is consistent with random
> mutation/natural selection
> when it clearly is not, etc. Now if you wish to say that
> God *caused* these
> events to occur this way by loading the original DNA and/or
> original
> bacterial cells with the mechanisms to do those things,
> then the subsequent
> steps from bacteria to man are natural, and should be
> discoverable. It is my
> position, sir, that we should have discovered quite a bit
> more of them by
> now, and also that the current model does not fit what we
> have discovered.
> However I will be happy to convert (back) to TE should you
> provide me with
> sufficient evidence that your position has provided the
> answers necessary to
> justify the naturalistic model. I don't see that.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> I think this too is a major departure from the RTB
> position, and one where
> we will likely will have to disagree permanently, should
> you choose not to
> be swayed. I am not a "literalist" or a
> "fundamentalist" or a "creationist"
> as history has defined those words - they relate mostly to
> the YEC arena.
> However, I do believe that the dual-revelations of the
> Bible and God's world
> should and do agree. I think RTB's position on this is
> the clearest and most
> consistent that I have seen. If you have another position
> that you would
> like to share, I would be happy to look at it. But I am a
> Christian who
> accepts the canon, not the gnostic texts, et al. I see no
> problem with
> Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2, for instance, and know of at least
> one TE (a former
> pastor of mine) who rejected Genesis because of this
> apparent difference in
> creation order. The RTB position, description, explanation,
> and exegesis of
> Genesis may not be perfect, but it simply is the best I
> have seen.
>
>
>
> I believe that the scientific evidence is a valid witness
> of God's creative
> activities. I just don't think that evidence is clearly
> and convincingly
> consistent with the model of neoDarwinian evolution using
> just naturalism
> from bacteria to man. It is most consistent sir, in my
> opinion, with the
> TCM.
>
>
>
> > 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 just read "The Language of God" recently,
> because of the conflict the book
> stirred up in the listserve at RTB. I didn't go back
> and read the old
> threads on that from a few years ago, however. That may
> have been you, John?
>
>
>
> I liked the book! It was quite good, but Collin's
> worldview was clear from
> the 1st chapter. I think he's a great guy and a great
> writer, but he
> presupposes evolutionary processes are explanatory for the
> whole of history.
> LOOK at the data. The data simple does NOT fit the model.
> You can say it
> does, you can believe it does, you can tell me it does, all
> I ask you to do
> is one thing: show me. I am not just referring to CD
> here...I think I have
> explained that above and in my post yesterday. CD is not a
> smoking gun.
>
>
>
> We have two models: neoDarwinian evolution from the
> viewpoint of TE, and the
> TCM. Look at the data, and show me where the TCM fails. If
> CD is the only
> place, then how does my position above fail to answer it?
>
>
>
> > I understand and empathize with the RTB PC position
> and I know giving it
> up is
>
> > painful, but it just doesn't work.
>
>
>
> Yes it does.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it does, but not in the way that you think. You
> need more faith to
> believe neoDarwinian processes can explain all that has
> occurred! Tell me
> exactly how DNA encodes tertiary information in the cell.
> Tell me exactly
> why we have hundreds of examples of convergent evolution,
> if neoDarwinian
> evolutionary processes as described in your model are
> correct. I'm waiting
> to hear.
>
>
>
> > 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 embarrassing and just
> really immature.
>
>
>
> As is faith in Darwin. Right back at you.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> > schwarzwald@gmail.com
>
>
>
> "guided" TE = RTB's TCM! I highly recommend
> it. www.reasons.org
>
>
>
> All for today. Thanks for the great debate, more tomorrow.
>
>
>
> James Patterson

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 09:53:50 2008