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

David,

In my humble opinion, the difference is that evolution allows for our universal constant of entropy to introduce errors or sloppiness at some point downstream of the original design, especially when this may span millions or billions of years, whereas you wouldn't expect this from special creation which is poofed into being in the present time and not encumbered with evolutionary baggage.

Thanks

John

----- Original Message ----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com; bernie.dehler@intel.com; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 10:31:23 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

D.S. said: 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.
 
Why? Exactly the same argument applies against any TE position that holds that God is sovereign over and the primary cause of evolution.

 
On 11/4/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 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. 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.

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 10:50:01 2007