Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

>
> Is an argument for theism / design based on convergent evolution a "*YEC
> or ID*" argument?
>

An argument for theism/design based on convergent evolution is simply a non
sequiteur. If evolution occurs, it ought to show convergence. The same
basic shape is streamlined for fast swimming, no matter if it is a mammal,
reptile, fish, squid, or crustacean. Similar genes are useful for the same
function and are especially likely if evolution starts from about the same
place. Convergence should occur under any evolutionary scenario.

On the revelation of God/theology in nature, perhaps a different sort of
Biblical example would be helpful. "Consider the ant, and be wise". Ants
do many things, some of which are good examples for humans (e.g., working
diligently), some of which are bad examples for humans (e.g., working
mindlessly, raiding picnics, getting into my kitchen trash at night,
kidnapping others' offspring and raising them as slaves), and some of which
are silly or impossible examples for humans (use all limbs for locomotion
and carry stuff with your mouth; use antennae for smelling). A sluggard who
knows what he really ought to do (based on, e.g., the Bible) might have his
conscience pricked to be less lazy by watching ants, but someone who truly
had no clue what to do would not be helped merely by watching ants (cf. my
toddler's offer to go get some ants as a way to clean up the crumbs he made
indoors). Extensive consideration of ants has not done E. O. Wilson any
evident theological good. Likewise, knowing that God is the Creator, I can
appreciate all aspects of creation as His work and see His glory declared in
the heavens and earth, but I am not arguing from the latter to the existence
of God.

Perhaps one significant problem with standard YEC/ID science arguments is
that they insist on attacking evolution. Focusing on God's good provision
might be better. For example, the chocolate chip cookie mentioned in
passing contains ingredients from around the world, and chocolate is fairly
toxic to many organisms. Although as omnivores, we may be expected
evolutionarily to like and be able to eat a wide range of things, it's not
obvious why a toxin produced by a plant from a continent without hominids
would be exceptionally tasty to a hominid. A similar line of thought would
be asking why much of nature is beautiful.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.