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

But again, the same argument applies as against TE. In both instances, we
can ask "if God knew everything from the beginning why did He do it
*this*way?" And in both instances, we have to offer the same answer:
we don't
know. Unless the creation was instantaneous, the same problem arises.

On Nov 5, 2007 6:20 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> 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 18:38:38 2007