Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (OEC positions) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

 To me it's pretty simple.  God personally twiddling with existing DNA is evolution.  -Mike

 or by God
personally twiddling with existing DNA? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:37 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (OEC positions) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

D.F. Siemens, Jr.
wrote:

“This presents one of
the OEC approaches, that at various times God added new genes to various
individuals of groups and then let them develop.”

According to that
view, how were new genes added… from scratch and made perfect, or by God
personally twiddling with existing DNA?  I’m only familiar with the Hugh
Ross OEC position; who (or which ministry group) represents another OEC
position?

…Bernie

From: D. F. Siemens,
Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:20
PM

To: dopderbeck@gmail.com

Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com; Dehler,
Bernie; asa@calvin.edu

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

This presents one of the OEC approaches, that at various times God
added new genes to various individuals of groups and then let them develop. The
other view, which I heard from Hugh Ross, is that God created every species de
novo at the appropriate time in earth history. But this means that God is a
sloppy designer or intentional deceiver unless it can be proved that every one
of these elements has a purpose. The exclusion of perfect design applies to
finite humans, but cannot apply to an omniscient deity. It can apply to a
limited deity, as in process theology. But even here a deity should know better
or not to able to tune the world to provide a place for life. This is a
radically different notion than the use of secondary apart from the big bang,
or the big bang and origin of life, or the big bang, origin of life and the
first human

Dave (ASA).

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:41:22 -0500 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:

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.

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 10:36:00 2007