RE: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

>And, the full TE position really says exactly the same thing, except that
it holds that God's causal influence was secondary rather than direct.

David,

This is exactly the point. The difference between OEC and TE is not the
messy code but how it got there, and whether it was a primary or secondary
cause.

This is the exact corollary to the "appearance of age" argument of the YEC's
that OEC refutes. They will concede as they do in "Who Was Adam" that
pseudogenes give the "appearance of common descent" but just likes the YEC's
do with the appearance of age, instead of admitting it, resort to some
theological cop-out. OEC is clinging to a wishful thinking level of
concordism of the scriptures that is not supported by the science.

An old earth is as far as you can take science in the evangelical church and
even that is by the hardest. This is borne out by Dobson's Truth Project
skirting this issue and not even taking a stand on it. Common descent is
way beyond the pale.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:41 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
evolution...?

I think a typical OEC response is that God reused the genetic code as He
progressively created. I don't think this is a terrible response. The
counter-argument is, why would God re-use "messy" code? But why not? No
one argues for "perfect" design, and any complex coding exercise involves
pieces of code that may have had some functionality in earlier iterations
but that aren't called upon in later ones. And, the full TE position really
says exactly the same thing, except that it holds that God's causal
influence was secondary rather than direct.

On 11/4/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bernie,

That section in "Who Was Adam" was written by Dr. Fuz Rana who is RTB's
staff biochemist. His response to pseudogenes is like that for junk DNA,
they question its junk status and instead suggest that it may have been part
of God's design. YEC's have the same response as well.

Fuz monitors this list and if he see this, he may have something else to
add. I know that some in the RTB base have pressed them to modify their
position on this. I think that after Collins and Behe have both come out on
this point, they will eventually have to in order to maintain their
credibility.

The problem is that this is a real theological can of worms within the
evangelical church which is where they get most of their support.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:03 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for
evolution...?

Hi all-

     I'm new to this group (and ASA), so I hope I'm not bringing up
something already discussed in great detail. If so, maybe you can direct me
to the log.

     In my recent studies on the origins debate, it seems to me that there
is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" via pseudogenes. These are genes
present and functional in lower life forms, yet we have messed-up
(nonfunctional) copies of them. There are supposed to be thousands of
pseudogenes in the human genome. Humans and apes have these messed-up
copies, but not lower life-forms. Since we share the messed-up copies with
apes, we can't say that it is from the fallen human nature, as apes also
have them messed-up while lower lifeforms don't. A prime example is
supposed to be ascorbic acid (vitamin c).

     Hugh Ross, in his book "Who was Adam" explains the technical details
well, and ends up saying there is no "old earth" response (since old earth
is against evolution). no response yet, anyway. Young earther's also don't
seem to have a response to this argument.

     It seems to me that we have to accept this evidence for evolution. just
as we have accepted evidence from Copernicus/Galileo regarding a
heliocentric solar system.

     Question: Is it true there is no serious response from young earthers
or old earthers to the claim that pseudogenes are overwhelming proof for
evolution?

     Then again, there's also the biological evolutionary evidence based on
chromosomes. Humans have one less chromosome than apes, and it can be seen
that the reason why is because two ape-like chromosomes have joined into one
for human. This joint is obvious. Again, any good young earth or old earth
responses?

     Both the pseudogene and chromosome evidence for evolution were cited as
evidence by Dr. Francis Collins in his recent book.

     By the way, I'm on the mailing list for Liberty University. They claim
there is no compelling evolutionary evidence. Check out this quote:

Dr. David DeWitt, Liberty University professor of biology, wants to help
Christians understand the nature of creationism and teach them how to ably
counter mainstream arguments.

His new book, "Unraveling the Origins Controversy," is a crash course in
biblical creationism and examines assumptions on both sides of the origins
debate with clear biblical teachings.

The veteran professor, who is director of Liberty's Center for Creation
Studies, notes that there are new scientific findings in terms of the
earth's foundations almost every day and Christians need to have a framework
for understanding these alleged evolutionary breakthroughs.

Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of Health
grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We live in the
same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We simply use different
assumptions and reach creation conclusions."

Included in Dr. DeWitt's scientific refutation of evolutionary theory, he
incorporates Scripture throughout his book to support the science of
creationism. He believes the value of his book is that it is written by a
scientist who integrates up-to-the-minute findings with a biblical
worldview.

Asked if there is any argument an evolutionist can make that a creationist
cannot effectively answer, Dr. DeWitt smiled wryly and offered a simple,
"No."

"We have nothing to worry about in defending our beliefs," he confidently
stated.

.Bernie

www.sciligion.org <http://www.sciligion.org/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 4 11:10:32 2007