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

James, just two responses. You asked me to "see your point," and I'll say to
you what I've said many times before: I don't have any problem with the choices
people make about what to *believe* about origins. You prefer to believe in
lots and lots of miraculous intervention. I don't, but I'm not going to
criticize you for that. My problems with you and with RTB have to do with your
disheartening failure (or inability) to accurately portray the science you
claim to reject.

First, you claim to be unconvinced by the evidence undergirding the tree of
life. I will not try to convince you, but I will say that I do not take
seriously your dismissal of the science or your mocking suggestion that
phylogenetic inferences are "made up in the minds of Darwinian evolutionists."
Rather than be offended by such talk, I merely assume that the person uttering
such banalities is ignorant, and your further comments demonstrate that you
have made no serious attempt to understand evolutionary science.

You reveal this in your comments on Neanderthals. If you had read anything
from the scientific literature since at least 1997, you would know that the
hypothesis of direct ancestry of humans from Neanderthals was never more than a
speculation (based on morphology) and that there were competing hypotheses from
the beginning. Accumulating genetic data in the 90's was already casting doubt
on the direct ancestry hypothesis, and a landmark 1997 paper on mitochondrial
DNA almost completely ruled it out. Since then, the major question is not
about direct ancestry "through Neanderthals" but whether Neanderthals and
humans might have interbred. And the most recent data suggests that they did
not. Even if they did, we would not conclude that human phylogeny goes
"through Neanderthals." When you wrote that ancestry "through Neanderthals" is
a "best guess" you revealed significant ignorance and confusion on this topic.

I know of one place where one might acquire this confusion about Neanderthals.
It's RTB. Their pervasive mishandling of biology, and especially of
evolutionary biology, is typified by their strawman-based discussions of the
Neanderthal ancestry, not to mention their outright dishonesty regarding "junk
DNA" and convergent evolution. James, you were quite unwise to go to RTB in
search of knowledge about evolution. I recommend you start anew, as various
former RTB devotees here have done, seeking understanding from the scientific
literature and not from the propagandists in Glendora. (Heck, at the same
time, you could join me and others in urging RTB to adopt reforms that could
still rehabilitate their intellectual integrity.)

Second, you claim to have offered an "explanation" for broken genes in extant
genomes. What I gather is that you picture God fashioning a human body from a
non-human "precursor." And so you seem to expect characteristics of the
precursor to show up in the final product. This looks to me like common
descent, and you seem to agree, calling it descent with Modification (which you
identify as miraculous). I find this explanation to be useful in only one way:
it gives comfort to people who want to reserve space for "miracles." That's
all it accomplishes. Oddly, you (like all RTB apologists) *attack* common
descent, even though you just embraced the idea of a non-human "precursor" for
human beings. So you're perfectly fine with all sorts of biological continuity
between humans and primate ancestors, you just don't want an actual
phylogenetic link between them. This is, in my view, utterly foolish. At the
end of the day, all you're fighting for is miracles, and your main tactic is
the ill-conceived manufacture of explanatory gaps for miracles to fill. I find
this approach to be theologically bizarre and intellectually disreputable.
Even if Hugh Ross showed exemplary intellectual integrity -- and he doesn't --
these behaviors would raise serious doubts about scholarly and scientific
integrity.

Let me make something clear, James. I a place where Christians can feel free to adopt various stances toward
creation. This should not be a place where one should be ashamed to express a
preference for a certain frequency of miraculous intervention, or where one
should be afraid to express skepticism about particular scientific
explanations. So I repeat: it is NOT foolish or disreputable to suggest that
God accomplishes his goals in creation through frequent miraculous
interventions. It is NOT dishonest or obnoxious to admit to being unconvinced
by one's current understanding of neo-Darwinism, or to criticize scientific
apologists for arrogance, overstatement, religious fervor, etc. But in my
opinion, this SHOULD be a place where the casual and ignorant dismissal of
scientific theories is met with sharp criticism and an exhortation to avoid
such intellectual malpractice.

You can learn a lot more here than at reasons.org. I hope you stay a long
time. Blessings,

Steve Matheson

>>> "James Patterson" <james000777@bellsouth.net> 10/29/08 7:07 AM >>>

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 organi> 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 tMan 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 ramI 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 Thu Oct 30 12:21:02 2008