Dave,
You said, "I think I understand where you're coming from, an unqualified
commitment to recent creation. Since I didn't get my point across
earlier, let me try another example."
You deduce correctly - and yes, I did understand the original analogy -
and thought I had properly addressed the points you raised. However, to
avoid any confusion, perhaps it is better that I present my case afresh.
You state, "Since there is lots of disconnected stuff in the genome of
virtually every creature examined, did an intelligent Creator produce
things (immediately) with all this nonfunctional stuff?" But why should
you regard "junk" DNA as necessarily _nonfunctional_? In a recent email
to George Murphy I said that the one big advantage a Christian has over
the secular humanist is that he is a _supernaturalist_; in other words,
he is committed to the belief that events in this world run parallel
with those of another created domain. If he is acquainted with the Book
of Job and with 1Kings:22, he will have encountered snapshots of typical
interactions that occur across this divide; and he will know that what
is to happen here on earth may already have been declared in the 'courts
of heaven'.
So, for the scientist who is also a Christian to state _categorically_
that "junk" DNA is _nonfunctional_ makes little sense - for he should
realise that he can never be in a position to make such a judgment. The
matter is succinctly put by Blaise Pascal (Pensees 188): "Reason's last
step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things
which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to
realise that. If natural things are beyond it, what are we to say about
supernatural things?"
You conclude, "Since you do not want to accept these conclusions, please
present a lucid explanation how a rational designer of living creatures
jams a lot of useless stuff into them, especially disconnected archaic
stuff." I believe I have answered the specific point. However, I will
press my case by providing a lucid and concise explanation of my general
view of how things really are:
The Bible - already a most remarkable Book - has recently been shown to
begin in a highly remarkable manner - in fact, so remarkable as to defy
all natural understanding! Perhaps equally remarkable has been the
universally negative response to this news! I interpret this as proof of
the biblical strictures concerning man (viz "creature of evil
imaginations from his youth, enemy of God, deceitful above all things
and desperately wicked" - appropriately sanitized and shrouded in the
euphemism "original sin"), and thus of our utter dependance on the
truths He has revealed to us in the Scriptures. This 'standing miracle'
(it is nothing less, as you will know from the evidences and arguments
presented on my websites) is clearly something that is feared by
evolutionists (and, strangely, also by creationists!) - otherwise it
would be allowed as a valid topic for reasoned debate in forums such as
ASA. These being the hard facts, I suggest it is highly reasonable that
we look nowhere else for a true account of origins than the early
chapters of the Bible.
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> Vernon,I think I understand where you're coming from, an unqualified
> commitment to recent creation. Since I didn't get my point across
> earlier, let me try another example. Imagine that I show you my new
> car, the most recent product of the best design minds in the business,
> and you discover that, under the steering wheel is a spark advance
> lever and under the hood is a magneto, though the car is equipped with
> electronic ignition. There is a pull labeled "choke," and under the
> hood both a carburetor and fuel ignition injectors. There is a hand
> throttle and cruise control, generator and alternator. Does keeping
> all the archaic devices, which of course have to be disconnected,
> demonstrate that the designer was more intelligent than the ones
> behind the various 2002 production models? Since there is lots of
> disconnected stuff in the genome of virtually every creature examined,
> did an intelligent Creator directly produce things with all this
> nonfunctional stuff? Does this manifest omniscience and omnipotence?
> Only a dogmatic insistence on God's immediate production of all living
> things require the answer, "Yes, though nothing about it makes sense."
> If the Creator is not in a hurry but can use billions of years for the
> development of creation under his providential rule, then what the
> various sciences discover in terms of "junk" DNA, resemblances across
> genera and kingdoms, the age of the fossils and universe, and all the
> rest, all fit into a reasonable whole. Can God have produced the
> universe and all that is in it instantaneously? Can he use a single
> design for various entries? Of course! But then, given what we
> observe, he would be either as stupid as the hypothetical designers of
> "my new car," or he would be deliberately misleading us into thinking
> that he used ages and evolution. Since you do not want to accept these
> conclusions, please present a lucid explanation how a rational
> designer of living creatures jams a lot of useless stuff into them,
> especially disconnected archaic stuff.Dave On Thu, 28 Mar 2002
> 15:14:12 +0000 Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
>
> 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
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> "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 : Fri Mar 29 2002 - 18:42:06 EST