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

James, I'll start by reiterating what I said from the beginning: I am not here
to criticize you, or argue with you, regarding your theological preferences. I
have different preferences. Perhaps under different conditions we could
discuss the merits and ramifications of our respective theological positions,
but for now, to repeat, that's not what I find unacceptable about your rhetoric
or the rhetoric of the apologists at RTB.

So I will ignore your ranting about "atheistic journals" and delete your
appalling mischaracterization of my "TE" position. Suffice it to say that I
found much of your post to be obnoxious and unworthy of any serious response.

You have already announced that you doubt common descent in general, with some
exceptions. For the second time: I won't seek to change your mind. You think
that phylogenetic links are "made up." Fine with me. I won't take your claim
seriously, especially since you seem not to have read the actual literature,
but that needn't concern you. If you want to understand why I have reached a
different conclusion, I would be glad to point you to some basic readings that
will outline the evidence explained by universal common descent. The
phylogenetic links are inferred, not "made up," but if you want to invoke
miracles to fill the space between species, I won't try to stop you. My
responses below, then, only concern specific factual matters that will help you
understand some of my previous statements.

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 replied:
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.

My response:
Gee, James, that's not what you wrote at all. You deleted the actual context
to which I was responding. I will restore it here.

James, in the original post:
The extant data show no clear track from hominids to man, and the best guess -
from Neanderthals - has DNA evidence indicating they were not from whom man
descended, National Geographic’s recent article to the contrary.

I think it's pretty clear that you were claiming (as RTB does) that the "track
from hominids to man" is --or was recently--thought to go "from Neanderthals."
Anyone who has read the literature since at least 1997 would know that to be a
falsehood. On the other hand, anyone who gets their information from RTB would
be confused on this issue, because RTB regularly mischaracterizes the
postulated position of Neanderthals in hominid evolution. I'm sorry, James,
but you appear to be underinformed on the issues about which you choose to
post. Reading more of the "atheistic" literature might have helped you
understand the reality of current thought on recent hominid evolution. By the
way, I've not seen the National Geographic article, but I would be surprised if
you have accurately represented its claims. Perhaps others will chime in here.

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?

My response:
Why, I'm glad you asked, because I feel it is very important for Christians to
know about the abuses at RTB. I have posted on this email list about these
issues before, so I'll paste in some links to blothose subjects, at the end of this post. Brace yourself, though, especially
for the junk DNA fable, which is actually quite disturbing. Here's the short
version of my response to your challenge.
1. On "junk DNA," RTB gets almost everything wrong. Falsely, they claim that
"junk DNA" was assumed to be functionless by "darwinists" in general and from
the beginning; falsely, they claim that research on non-coding DNA languished
for decades as a result, then was revived by research conducted by physicists;
falsely, they claim that the discovery of a function for a piece of DNA
previously thought not to be functional is a problem for evolutionary science.
It is hard to find more disheartening abuse of good science than the shocking
falsehood of Hugh Ross' claims about "junk DNA." Even if it were the only
problem with their work on evolution, it would be devastating to their
credibility and would cast doubt on their intellectual integrity. I implore
you to consider how you might encourage RTB to erase this blot on their
reputation.
2. On convergent evolution, Fuz Rana regularly and grossly misrepresents the
ramifications of such fascinating phenomena in evolution. He claims that
evolution does not predict convergence, and that its existence is therefore a
huge problem for evolution. This is simply dishonest. The view of evolution
that Rana uses as his strawman is the strong-contingency view of Stephen Jay
Gould. This view was disputed from the very beginning, most notably by strong
adaptationists. And Simon Conway Morris, a Christian and eminent evolutionary
biologist, champions a view that is almost completely the opposite of Gould's.
Rana's claim that Gould's controversial view constitutes "the very essence of
the evolutionary process" is a particularly disheartening example of moral
failure at RTB. Again, I urge you to consider how you might encourage the RTB
apologists to purge such gross misinformation from the work of their ministry.

James, you have a set of theological preferences that I do not share. I will
ignore your implicit claims to be more faithful to God or the Bible than I am,
and simply reiterate my respect for your preferences. After all, there will
always be a place for the invoking of miraculous intervention, especially in
the past, and there will never be any way to prove that such intervention did
not occur. Now if you really want to know why I adopt the stance that I do,
let me know and we can discuss that, amicably. But if you think I'm an idiot
for acknowledging the explanatory power of common descent and of natural
providence in general, rest assured that your opinions on that score do not
affect me in any way.

Steve Matheson

On Hugh Ross' fictional fable about "junk DNA"
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/hugh-ross-shocking-fairy-tale.html
On Rana's misrepresentation of evolutionary convergence
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-its-not-just-disagreement.html
Rana's most recent distortion of the convergence issue
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/06/26/deja-vu-again-part-2-of-2/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 2 21:38:37 2008