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

Randy said: *What is the probability that a different organism will have
the same, or nearly the same, sequence in the corresponding part of the
genetic code if there is no common ancestor? This meets the ultra-low
probability criterion for being virtually impossible. With a common
ancestor, the probability is very high.
*
I don't think I suggested anything that denies common ancestry. The OEC-ish
view I suggested is that, perhaps, God re-uses code that works. The re-use
of working code means that common ancestry is real. However, it means that
this common ancestry is not necessarily entirely gradual and within the
realm of secondary causes.

The objection to this argument that I was addressing was, I think, primarily
an aesthetic one -- why would God re-use messy code rather than "writing" it
new each time? I still think my response is correct. A "pure" TE view
essentially says what I'm saying -- God did, in fact, "re-use" and modify
code, continually through an unbroken evolutionary process. Thus, there is
no essential difference here between what I've suggested and a "pure" TE
view.

The new objection Randy raises is that science can't speak in terms of God
intervening to re-use code. Fair enough. But this circles back to a more
basic epistemological question: if science can't address it, does that mean
it can't be true?

The more important objection that no one has raised, I think, is "who needs
it?" Why bother with suggesting that God ever punctuates natural history
rather than operating only through secondary causes? For me, this boils
down to a personal conflict about reconciling the scriptures concerning Adam
and original sin with secondary causes. I find this extremely difficult
(evan after re-reading Robin Collins' interesting essay in the Perspectives
book this evening), particularly in my evangelical context with its
hermeneutical and exegetical presuppositions. Am I really willing to ditch
millennia of tradition, a more straightforward reading of the relevant
texts, and the approval of my church leadership, to support the assumption
that the explanation must lie in secondary causes alone? Are you?

On Nov 5, 2007 9:58 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

> Wow. What a deluge of notes. Lots of good comments if I could find the
> time to read and digest it all.
>
> I think David Campbell addressed this very well in his recent post but let
> me just add a little bit more. No, no, this is not at all about aesthetics
> or any principle of messiness. We're talking very specifically about the
> pattern of genetic modification. In fact, one might properly apply the
> concept of specified complexity to this problem. Take a DNA sequence of a
> non- or low-functionality portion of DNA in any organism. What is the
> probability that a different organism will have the same, or nearly the
> same, sequence in the corresponding part of the genetic code if there is no
> common ancestor? This meets the ultra-low probability criterion for being
> virtually impossible. With a common ancestor, the probability is very high.
> Maintaining that there is no common ancestor requires miraculous creation
> which immediately puts it beyond the realm of a scientific explanation. Once
> we move to the theological realm and claim that, yes, the organisms were
> miraculously created and not descended from a common organism, one must find
> a rationale for the particular patterns of genetic code--both the
> similarities and the differences. We are imaginative enough to be able to
> invent such rationales, but they remain just that--rationales to bolster an
> arbitrary non-scientific solution when a simple scientific one exists that
> works just fine.
>
> Randy
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
> Randy said: *[re-use] It's certainly a hypothetical possibility but it's
> the particular pattern of genetic modification that renders this unlikely.
> *
>
> Why? Is there some aesthetic design principle that's been violated?
> Wouldn't the same be true for the messiness of "ordinary" evolution?
>
>
>

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 23:19:14 2007