RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Moorad said:
"That is to say, which came first, the single strand in humans that was divided in two or the two divided in chimpanzees which jointed to become one? "

Francis Collins explains this in his book "The Language of God." I would suggest you get that book for your personal library. In a non-technical nutshell, each chromosome has end markers and a middle marker. We have one less set of chromosomes than that of apes. How could we descend from them and have 1 less chromosome pair? The answer is that two of their chromosomes fused into our #2. In the middle of the #2 human chromosome you can see the end markers where they meet and fuse- I think unlike any of the other chromosomes. All that is non-technical and from memory, so there is likely some error in the details, but it should give the big picture as to why the reverse can't be true- couldn't have started with human chromosome #2 dividing to create the apes. The book explains it much better with some pictures, as I recall.

I think this all relatively new DNA evidence (last few years) for the descent of man from apelike creatures- and YEC hasn't dealt with it yet. I think this DNA evidence and pseudogene evidence will bury the YEC and OEC movement for good... once it gets out. It is taking a long time for the news to get out because it is highly technical, and the general population is largely ignorant on modern biochemistry and these genomic findings. But I think the genomic studies are advancing and building quickly... soon it will be in everyone's face. The first to generally learn about it will be our kids in college.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:07 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Is it ridiculous to question which way the fusing of human chromosome #2 happened temporally? That is to say, which came first, the single strand in humans that was divided in two or the two divided in chimpanzees which jointed to become one?
Moorad

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:42 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008 (William Lane Craig)

Schwarzwald said about William Lane Craig:
"He comes across as appealing for - amazingly enough - moderation and charity towards fellow Christians who disagree on these points, particularly insofar as how they relate to theology."

It is fine to be moderate as long as the evidence isn't in... but when the evidence is in, it is a matter of being wrong when trying to be moderate. When the evidence comes in, it is time for taking sides. The only reason to stay moderate in the face of the evidence is because of fear- fear of being rejected by some (or much of the faithful). The evidence for evolution from apelike creature to man is overwhelming, in my opinion (pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2). This is no time to be moderate, in my opinion, when one wants to be on the leading edge of apologetics- esp. to a skeptical and atheist audience.

Yes- William Lane Craig addresses biological evolution, but it seems like it only when asked. Other than that, he tries to avoid or circumvent the discussion. I find that reprehensible for a person who wants to be on the cutting edge of apologetics. And he certainly claims to be in harmony with modern science, so there's no way for anyone to accept scientific ignorance on his part because he's "only a philosopher"- he doesn't claim to be "only a philosopher." Anyway, if a philosopher is scientifically ignorant, their philosophy will be in error. Philosophy is human logic/reason based on facts, so awareness of all scientific facts is a foundation for philosophy.

,,,Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

I would guess that the reasons would be 1) WLC seems to believe the case for darwinism has been oversold. I've seen some replies to him on this point, namely that he doesn't seem to truly understand what evolution entails, and how a modern view of evolution includes vastly more than simple mutation and natural selection. In my experience, this isn't a point that ID proponents run away from - many celebrate it and report on it eagerly. It may well be that one scientist's evolutionary New Synthesis may be another man's gapless design. 2) His attitude doesn't seem to be one of 'investing' in ID, such that 'Well, if TE is entirely compatible with Christianity, why even speculate about ID? Just accept evolution and be done with it.' Instead he seems to be arguing that Christians see these questions in varying ways, that we should be respectful of their views, and at the same time skeptical. He comes across as appealing for - amazingly enough - moderation and charity towards fellow Christians who disagree on these points, particularly insofar as how they relate to theology.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd like to see more of a clear statement from WLC on point 1 below. And if that's the case, why start investing in the ID stuff?

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com<mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>> wrote:
1. Why aren't the reasons he gives good enough? If TE is true, if some form of ID is true, or if some form of progressive creationism or otherwise is true, he sees no biblical conflict or threat to his faith. So he has no theological pressure to commit - and since the whole debate is politically charged, plenty of reason to be cautious.
2. 'Accepts evolution' is loaded. The same book where he shows an acceptance of evolution is the same book where he's arguing that there is tremendous design apparent in evolution, along within other natural settings - he accepts evolution in a way markedly different from, say, Ken Miller. Besides, what's being appealed to are Denton's arguments - not Denton himself. If Darwin recanted and dismissed all his theories on his deathbed, would it be improper to refer to his earlier works if it was believed the points were persuasive?

BTW - I assume you'll take back the charge that WLC is a coward? Since in this article and apparently his podcast (I have yet to listen to it), he not only discusses evolution, but argues that it's entirely compatible with Christianity, and doesn't even require interventions in order to be so. Rather speaks against the idea that he's afraid of talking about this subject, or against defending a 'naturally unfolding' biological world.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:

Thanks for that link. Two things:

 1. He claims to be agnostic on the fact of evolution. I wonder why that is... I mean the real reason.
 2. He appeals to Michael Denton for arguments against evolution. Just like my Theology teacher did. Then I found out, after finishing the class, Denton's book (Evolution in Crisis) was really old and now Denton accepts evolution! Why appeal to the old Denton when the new Denton no longer believes it ???

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:50 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

Funny timing in that regard. Just today WLC updated Reasonable Faith about this very topic.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:

Looking at their agenda- looks like evolution is not a topic. From listening to William Lane Craig, I get the impression that he dodges the question of evolution at every opportunity. He's afraid to address it head-on in my experience. I've listened to a lot of his podcasts. I like him a lot- just think he is a coward in that respect... especially since he claims to be on the forefront of apologetics.

My guess is he thinks that the Christian faithful isn't yet ready to accept evolution, and so he avoids it, by saying other philosophical points make the debate unimportant. (The evidence for a Creator means you don't have to accept a naturalistic godless universe... but what about evolution as God's method of design??? I don't think he'll address it.)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:16 PM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: [asa] Apologetics Conference 2008

http://apologeticsconference.com/ <http://apologeticsconference.com/>

November 20-22, 2008
Smithfield, Rhode Island

Inspirational Speakers:

William Lane Craig
Paul Copan
Gary Habermas
Craig Evans
Darrell Bock
Charles Quarles
Brett Kunkle
And Many More <http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html <http://apologeticsconference.com/speakers.html> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 14:14:20 2008