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

Obviously, seeing a ghost is not observing the natural world.

John

--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

> From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com, asa@calvin.edu, "James Patterson" <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 9:50 AM
> 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.

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 20:59:52 2008