Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn Steve

James wrote: " However since we are on this topic, I am interested in
getting back copies of ASA's PSCF."

Many of the past issues of PSCF can be viewed on ASA.ORG

Burgy

On 11/1/08, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> James, just two responses. You asked me to "see your point," and I'll say
> to you what I've said many times before: I don't have any problem with the
> choices people make about what to *believe* about origins. You prefer to
> believe in lots and lots of miraculous intervention. I don't, but I'm not
> going to criticize you for that. My problems with you and with RTB have to
> do with your disheartening failure (or inability) to accurately portray the
> science you claim to reject.
>
>
>
> First, you claim to be unconvinced by the evidence undergirding the tree of
> life. I will not try to convince you, but I will say that I do not take
> seriously your dismissal of the science or your mocking suggestion that
> phylogenetic inferences are "made up in the minds of Darwinian
> evolutionists." Rather than be offended by such talk, I merely assume that
> the person uttering such banalities is ignorant, and your further comments
> demonstrate that you have made no serious attempt to understand evolutionary
> science.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> Your dismissal of my experience and intelligence is misplaced. I have a
> bachelor's degree in Biology, and a PhD in neuroscience, spent doing
> cellular biology. I also have an MD, but that's beside the point. I
> understand evolutionary science. You can choose to believe that, or not,
> that's your choice. I would greatly appreciate you trying to convince me, as
> I would love to see someone who could explain the examples I have given in
> previous posts. Stating that I am ignorant doesn't cut it, stating that I
> "haven't attempted to understand it" won't do, and stating that you don't
> take my dismissals seriously do NOT exempt you from having to defend a model
> that does not even adequately support the objective evidence.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> You reveal this in your comments on Neanderthals. If you had read anything
> from the scientific literature since at least 1997, you would know that the
> hypothesis of direct ancestry of humans from Neanderthals was never more
> than a speculation (based on morphology) and that there were competing
> hypotheses from the beginning.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> I know that. So tell me, why is it that Nat Geo is still trying to convince
> us all otherwise? Because that's all they've got. That was my point.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> I know of one place where one might acquire this confusion about
> Neanderthals. It's RTB. Their pervasive mishandling of biology, and
> especially of evolutionary biology, is typified by their strawman-based
> discussions of the Neanderthal ancestry, not to mention their outright
> dishonesty regarding "junk DNA" and convergent evolution.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> I'm just gonna have to say it: put up or shut up. Show me what you've got.
> How exactly does RTB typify outright dishonest regarding junk DNA and
> convergent evolution?
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> James, you were quite unwise to go to RTB in search of knowledge about
> evolution. I recommend you start anew, as various former RTB devotees here
> have done, seeking understanding from the scientific literature and not from
> the propagandists in Glendora. (Heck, at the same time, you could join me
> and others in urging RTB to adopt reforms that could still rehabilitate
> their intellectual integrity.)
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> I will happily read the scientific literature. Do you have any suggested
> reading that actually touch on the integration of science and faith that
> point towards God, published in perhaps Science or Nature, or maybe the
> Journal of Human Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, or Journal of
> Mammalian Evolution? Every single one of these publications is atheistic.
> The only time a potentially non-atheistic manuscript was published, the
> publisher was ran out of office (see Expelled). However since we are on this
> topic, I am interested in getting back copies of ASA's PSCF.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the TE position damages the cause of Christianity to insist
> that neoDarwinian evolution is the only mechanism, because (once again, ad
> nauseum) it does not address the objective data. Convergent evolution is one
> of the bits of objective data, so once again, show me what you got instead
> of calling me (RTB) a liar. It appears to me that you and others seem to
> think the only way to reach the science community is to adopt some sort of
> evolutionary worldview. This isn't the case. RTB scholars repeatedly
> present the TCM before secular university professors and others, and do
> reach some people, with some acceptance. I truly worry that the TE position
> is in some since similar to that of the ID camp, trying to gain acceptance
> by making compromises. In this case, the compromise is blind acceptance of
> neoDarwinian evolution. This is a trap of the world, explained pretty
> clearly in John 12:42-43.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> Second, you claim to have offered an "explanation" for broken genes in
> extant genomes. What I gather is that you picture God fashioning a human
> body from a non-human "precursor." And so you seem to expect
> characteristics of the precursor to show up in the final product. This
> looks to me like common descent, and you seem to agree, calling it descent
> with Modification (which you identify as miraculous). I find this
> explanation to be useful in only one way: it gives comfort to people who
> want to reserve space for "miracles." That's all it accomplishes. Oddly,
> you (like all RTB apologists) *attack* common descent, even though you just
> embraced the idea of a non-human "precursor" for human beings. So you're
> perfectly fine with all sorts of biological continuity between humans and
> primate ancestors, you just don't want an actual phylogenetic link between
> them. This is, in my view, utterly foolish.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> Then your view needs some revision, in my opinion. It isn't that I do not
> want an actual phylogenetic link. It is that there is none, or at least to
> date, there is not one. What is evident from this statement is that you WANT
> there to be an actual phylogenetic link, despite the actual lack of said
> link. And so you support neoDarwinian evolution, which in my view, is
> incorrect. I will not call it foolish, or you a fool; I think we can get by
> without that sort of language.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> At the end of the day, all you're fighting for is miracles, and your main
> tactic is the ill-conceived manufacture of explanatory gaps for miracles to
> fill.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> I clarify here again, that the "nature" (pun intended) of providence vs the
> supernatural is still not clear to me. I don't manufacture gaps – I don't
> have to. I don't think the gaps are ill-conceived; rather, they simply are
> gaps, and lots of them, in the neoDarwinian model. I think those gaps are
> better addressed by the TCM than by TE. Once again, show me what you got.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> I find this approach to be theologically bizarre and intellectually
> disreputable. Even if Hugh Ross showed exemplary intellectual integrity --
> and he doesn't -- these behaviors would raise serious doubts about scholarly
> and scientific integrity.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> The integration of science and faith can be done with or without the God of
> the Bible, and with or without the Bible. I choose to come to an integration
> of science and faith that includes both God, and the Bible. I believe the
> Bible to be true in what it touches (inerrant) and true in what it teaches
> (infallible). It sounds to me as if you don't agree with this position, and
> your language and semantics support this. If so, our further discourse here
> may lack utility. If I am wrong, I apologize, but please clarify your
> position here.
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> Let me make something clear, James. I want the ASA, and this email list, to
> be a place where Christians can feel free to adopt various stances toward
> creation. This should not be a place where one should be ashamed to express
> a preference for a certain frequency of miraculous intervention, or where
> one should be afraid to express skepticism about particular scientific
> explanations. So I repeat: it is NOT foolish or disreputable to suggest
> that God accomplishes his goals in creation through frequent miraculous
> interventions. It is NOT dishonest or obnoxious to admit to being
> unconvinced by one's current understanding of neo-Darwinism, or to criticize
> scientific apologists for arrogance, overstatement, religious fervor, etc.
> But in my opinion, this SHOULD be a place where the casual and ignorant
> dismissal of scientific theories is met with sharp criticism and an
> exhortation to avoid such intellectual malpractice.
>
>
>
> James replies:
>
> Agreed. And the blind acceptance of neoDarwinism is therefore what?
> Religious fervor? J
>
>
>
> Once again. Try and convince me of the truth of TE. This is why I am here. I
> say, and continue to say, without ignorance, and not causally, that the
> neoDarwinian evolutionary (I am going to start using NDE for neoDarwinian
> evolution) model does not adequately support ALL the objective evidence. I
> realize that there is quite a bit of evidence in support of NDE, I accept
> (as does RTB) some forms of evolution, even macroevolution. But it is
> incorrect (in my opinion) to force all the data to fit this model, when all
> the data do NOT.
>
>
>
> Show me what you got.
>
>
>
> James Patterson
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.