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

Adding a further complication does not alter the basic matter. As to the
argument by atheists, I note that even some of them are distressed by the
futility of some of their number.

Let me rephrase the situation. If computer and electronic engineers in
the 1980s had the information that they now have, we wouldn't have gone
through the sequence of CP/M, early versions of DOS, the sequence of
Windows systems, the development of Apples and Macs, etc. We'd have gone
directly to advanced computers and systems. Because no human being knew
what was coming, we had to go through a system of development. In
contrast, God knows the end from the beginning, so would produce a final
product at the beginning unless, in his infinite wisdom, he determines
that creation should merely initiate a process of "natural" causation.
You haven't recognized this radical distinction.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:09:58 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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 18:24:08 2007