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

*The difference is between God as primary cause of creation using secondary
causes throughout or being the immediate source without secondary causes
except as a continuation in time. This differentiation also applies, as
George noted, to the question of God's being the cause of sin.*

Yes but Aquinas' theodicy based on secondary causes involved the human will
and intentionality, and not merely the ordinary operation of nature, though
Aquinas certainly viewed nature as ordinarily operating according to
secondary causes.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. If we characterize the
genetic code as "sloppy" or "bad design," fingers of that critique point at
TE just as much as any other sort of creationist scenario. In fact, it is a
critique often used by atheists to debunk TE.

On 11/5/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> The difference is between God as primary cause of creation using secondary
causes throughout or being the immediate source without secondary causes
except as a continuation in time. This differentiation also applies, as
George noted, to the question of God's being the cause of sin.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:31:23 -0500 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
writes:
>
> 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 14:11:03 2007