RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Hi Bernie,

Welcome to the group :)

The "color" of my house (to use your nify remodeling
motif from your previous post) for the time being
seems to be somewhere between ID/OEC & TE, leaning
strongly to TE. Going off Collin's definition of a
typical TE (p. 200, Language of God), the only one I
would question/reject is #4 (still evaluating this
one) and I would modify #6 to say that while humans
are certainly unique, I believe that animals have a
spiritual nature too (but that's a whole different
thread!!).

Pertaining to the earliest portions of Genesis, here's
my current thinking...

Primarily based on the genealogical details (I'm a
genealogist in my spare time :) )and the historical
context, I do think that most, if not all (including
Adam and Eve) of the people in Genesis were real
people and/or were based on real people. Particularly
for Adam and Eve, I could see them being based on real
people but given different names in order to represent
larger concepts (analogous to Jacob taking the name
Israel). Likewise, I could easily see the flood being
a massive local event, similar to in our time
something on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or the
Asian tsunamis. More generally, the view that makes
most sense to me is that the early Genesis stories
were written, at least in part, as an apologetic
against other ancient religious belief systems,
adopting (hijacking!) many of the same motifs and
symbols but replacing the substance of the stories
with their (divinely inspired) religious beliefs and
nationalistic (Israelite) origins/heritage.

Hope this helps :)

In Christ,
Christine
 

--- "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> David Opderbeck said:
>
> "Ok, so why am I, who had been leaning towards all
> these TE arguments,
> now pushing back a bit? I've come to realize that a
> "strong" TE view
> seems inevitably to lead to a non-literal Adam &
> Eve, or a large
> population of first humans -- something that seems
> completely
> incongruous with arc of the Biblical narrative to
> me."
>
>
>
> I'm leaning to the TE side, and trying to decipher
> the Adam and Eve
> story in light of it. I hope to have a first draft
> by the end of the
> year. Yes, I tend to think that if evolution were
> true, then there is
> no unique Adam and Eve. Evolution works on groups.
> Also, there was no
> global flood, but OEC's already have that
> position... only instead of
> saying it was local, I would say there was no such
> flood at all. I
> think the reason for the flood and creation in
> Scripture is to teach a
> spiritual lesson, but they (creation with Adam and
> eve, and the flood)
> are not historical events. Yes, I'm not claiming
> the bible is inerrant,
> but I think I can still say it is "authorative."
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of David Opderbeck
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for
> evolution...?
>
>
>
> Randy said: Mixed in the middle of all these
> discussions is often a
> discussion of functionality of so-called "junk DNA".
> Many ID advocates
> have argued that a design perspective implies that
> there really is a
> usefulness of those portions of genetic code for
> which we do not yet
> know any function. In this mode, discoveries of
> function in junk DNA
> serve as support for ID but that doesn't work, in my
> books, since ID
> doesn't mandate it and evolution doesn't require a
> lack of
> functionality.
>
>
>
> But this does undercut the argument that non-coding
> regions are nothing
> but "relics" of evolution, just like fossils in
> rock strata. Fossils
> in rock strata are dead and non-functional, and
> serve only to evidence a
> past history. Likewise, junk DNA is purported to be
> nothing but
> evidence of a past history. If this supposedly
> non-functional DNA in
> fact has a function, however, that undercuts the
> "appearance of age"
> argument against a progressive creation / re-use /
> design perspective
> concerning DNA.
>
>
>
> Randy said: [re-use] It's certainly a hypothetical
> possibility but it's
> the particular pattern of genetic modification that
> renders this
> unlikely.
>
>
>
> Why? Is there some aesthetic design principle
> that's been violated?
> Wouldn't the same be true for the messiness of
> "ordinary" evolution?
>
>
>
> Ok, so why am I, who had been leaning towards all
> these TE arguments,
> now pushing back a bit? I've come to realize that a
> "strong" TE view
> seems inevitably to lead to a non-literal Adam &
> Eve, or a large
> population of first humans -- something that seems
> completely
> incongruous with arc of the Biblical narrative to
> me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/4/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Welcome, Bernie!
> > It's good to have you on board. I enjoyed
> meeting you in
> September. Good question.
> >
> > The YEC/OEC response to the genetic data you
> cited, once they have
> examined and understood the data, seems to be "yes,
> but that doesn't
> prove common descent." There's a spectrum of reasons
> and
> counter-possibilities offered.
> >
> > 1. Designer re-use. Engineers like the re-use
> with modification
> approach. It's certainly a hypothetical possibility
> but it's the
> particular pattern of genetic modification that
> renders this unlikely.
> >
> > 2. Purpose-driven designer. Closely related to
> the above is the
> notion that a designer intending to implement a
> specific function will
> use the same source but tailored to the specific
> application. Same
> problem.
> >
> > 3. Periodic creation of species. Depending on
> one's bias, the
> proposal is that God created a new species when
> appropriate that looks
> identical to what one might expect from evolution.
> You might call it
> "the appearance of common descent" but justified by
> the need for common
> functionality. This ranges all the way from one
> extreme to occurring for
> every "kind" or genus to the other end where only
> homo sapiens sapiens
> was uniquely created, with all appearances of
> commonality. Like
> "appearance of age" it can't be logically disproven
> but neither is it
> resonant with what has been revealed to us of our
> Creator.
> >
> > Mixed in the middle of all these discussions
> is often a discussion
> of functionality of so-called "junk DNA". Many ID
> advocates have argued
> that a design perspective implies that there really
> is a usefulness of
> those portions of genetic code for which we do not
> yet know any
> function. In this mode, discoveries of function in
> junk DNA serve as
> support for ID but that doesn't work, in my books,
> since ID doesn't
> mandate it and evolution doesn't require a lack of
> functionality.
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of
> meeting someone
> working at the Broad Institute here in Cambridge. He
> had a high energy
> physics degree from Yale and was now doing computer
> data analysis of
> genetic codes with a special interest in human
> history. He told me about
> the complexities of the genetic data. Genes are now
> known not be
>
=== message truncated ===

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 23:39:16 2007