Hi Dave,
I see nothing wrong with Allen's question. Surely it is one that
constantly needs to be asked, for people like yourself seem to regard
such developments as further proof of the truth of The Theory - always
ignoring the possibility of a reasonable alternative explanation. I am
surprised that you, as a logician, should regard the matter as
cut-and-dried.
Your questioning of the Creator's purposes is also quite out of place.
Surely, we shall never be in a position to read God's mind or fathom his
eternal purposes, and we are both foolish and presumptuous when we
pretend we can. Further, with respect to the possibility of our being
deceived by Him: may I suggest that it is rather the case that we first
deceive ourselves - and, thereafter, that God merely helps us on our
way! However, perhaps that is not the full story, for as you will no
doubt be aware, the Scriptures present us with certain problems in this
area. I am thinking particularly of that line in the Lord's prayer that
reads "...and lead us not into temptation..." (implying that He well
might!), and the account of the events which ultimately led to King
Ahab's demise (1Kings:22:1-40).
I hope you will reconsider your forthright objection and agree with me
that Allen's question is well deserving of a considered and reasoned
reply.
Vernon
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> Allen,On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:53:27 -0700 "Allen Roy"
> <allenroy@peoplepc.com> writes:
> > Dr. Collins, why should the relatedness of living things point more
> > to
> > evolution than to a common Designer with distinct creational
> > categories?
> >
> > Musical notes, for example, do not evolve one from another. They
> > have
> > relatedness, but they come from a Composer.
> >
> > An author may write many books, and there may be relatedness between
>
> > them,
> > but one book did not evolve from the other. The connection was in
> > the mind
> > of the author, etc.
> >
> > Why could this not be true for living organisms? Horses may have
> > many
> > similarities with catfish.
> > Could not the Designer make both using similar ideas without having
> > one
> > evolve from the other?
> >This is hardly a question for a geneticist, so I'll respond as a
> logician with a question growing out of an earlier interchange. What
> could be the purpose of the Creator's introducing a retroviral
> sequence into the genomes of some of the great apes and man? Were they
> functional, of course. But they have no function in gorillas,
> chimpanzees or humans. Of course, God can do anything he pleases. But
> what could be the purpose from God's side? to mislead us? That at
> least is more likely than that he is incompetent and simply messed up,
> except that would make him deceitful. What's your choice: incompetent
> inclusion? intentional deception? using evolution to accomplish his
> purpose? If all the genetic sequences were functional, coding for
> proteins, controlling coding, providing connections for the filaments
> that pull chromosomes apart in mitosis and meiosis, etc., you'd have a
> point, for it would all fit a clear design concept. But the amount of
> non-coding DNA eliminates the notion of intelligent design of much of
> the genome, even if we find that some of it is not junk. As I see it,
> the situation in the genome is similar to that of a demonstration by a
> mechanized British artillery unit. During the demonstration, one
> soldier stood at attention off to one side. Nobody could explain why.
> But investigation finally revealed that his earlier counterpart had
> held the horses while the rest of the crew fired the field piece. His
> position was left over, not designed in.
> >
> > Is the total number of genes in humans still around 30,000?
> >
> > Allen Roy
> >
> Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 28 2002 - 10:11:09 EST