Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

*An argument for theism/design based on convergent evolution is simply a non
sequiteur.*

So you didn't like Simon Conway Morriss' recent book?

On 10/23/06, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Received on Mon Oct 23 20:51:55 2006