Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

David Clounch -- I think you hit on an important point here, which is that
so much of the problem we have over creationism and ID stems from U.S.
Constitutional law. But I don't believe that one historically contingent
moment should drive what ultimately should be deep reflection on Truth. If
we compromise a holistic notion of Truth in order to gain some perceived
political advantage, I think we're giving away the game for the candle.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

> I try to focus on scientific knowledge.
>
> And when it comes to what government does, and public policy, and
> issues like the Dover trial, I think the scientific knowlege is what
> counts. I think the ASA should focus on scientific knowledge.
>
> Its not that I am against the other areas of knowledge. But school
> districts ban books like Behe's because they say it is a book about
> the field of religious knowledge not scientific knowledge. I don't
> think they are atheists when they do that. Actually, I think they are
> operating as religious believers and making government policy to align
> with their religion. Its not that their religion when held in private
> offends me. Its that their religion as the only allowed government
> endorsed knowledge offends the constitution. So if scientific
> knowledge is the standard all our feet are held to by courts then so
> be it.
>
> Now, if you really want to make an argument that other fields of
> knowledge affect and must be integrated with scientific knowledge in
> our society, I will join you in that. But you must be prepared to try
> to defeat the materialists in court when they try to limit all fields
> of knowledge to just scientific knowledge.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:33 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ok, I see. I think the problem is that you're somewhat buying into the
> > postivist epistemology of PZ et al. Their view is that nothing counts as
> > "knowledge" unless it's subject to a certain sort of empirical proof.
> > Almost nobody, theist or not -- outside the New Atheist fundamentalists
> and
> > some other hard-core materialists-- believes this anymore. Lots of
> things
> > count as knowledge that can't be reduced to mathematical-like empirical
> > proof.
> >
> > On the validity of theological knowledge, check out Alister McGrath's
> > "Scientific Theology," particularly the volume on "Reality," or at a more
> > popular level, his various books contra Dawkins (e.g., "Genes, Memes and
> the
> > Meaning of LIfe") and his book "Doubting." Deeper and richer than
> McGrath
> > -- and one of McGrath's inspirations -- see anything by Thomas Torrance,
> > particularly "Reality and Evangelical Theology," and Michael Polanyi,
> > "Personal Knowledge."
> >
> > The long and the short is that theological and philosophical knowledge
> > claims are valid types of claims that are subject to their own
> methodology.
> > Scientific knowledge claims are also valid types of claims, subject to an
> > empirical methodology, but even here empiricism only takes you so far
> before
> > you reach some un-verifiable foundational claims (including, for example,
> > that empiricism is the proper way to construct scientific knowledge
> claims).
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:13 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Dave Clounch, I'm not sure about what your concern is. Personally, my
> >> > view
> >> > of human nature is one of "holistic dualism." I think human beings
> have
> >> > a
> >> > "spiritual" nature -- the "soul" -- that is more than the aspects of
> the
> >> > "human" that are reducible to biology. At the same time, I think
> human
> >> > beings are a "whole," not merely "embodied souls." Given this, I
> think
> >> > it's
> >> > likely that there are aspects of human nature that simply cannot be
> >> > investigated by science. I would suggest that, at the very least, the
> >> > first
> >> > true humans -- Adam and Eve -- were imparted this spiritual nature and
> >> > that
> >> > it was subsequently propogated throughout the biological human
> species.
> >> > I
> >> > don't think this has anything to do with genetics.
> >>
> >> Surely PZ Meyers and other materialists would beg to disagree? And
> >> wouldnt they say they do this on scientific grounds? Why would they
> >> be wrong merely because some theologians say they are wrong? What
> >> sort of belief system is dualism? Is it a
> >> secular idea? Or something reserved for church?
> >>
> >> Thinking just a bit out of the box for a moment,
> >> let me ask this: Could this imparted spiritual nature have been given
> >> to Chimpanzees or some other species rather than homo sapiens? Or did
> >> homo sapiens have some supporting resources that other species didn't
> >> possess?
> >>
> >> Think of it as software. One wouldnt be very successful trying to run
> >> a higher level desktop operating system (such as Vista or RedHat
> >> Enterprise Linux) on a linkysys wireless-G router because the 200
> >> MHz ARM processor is too slow and there just are not enough resources
> >> there in the box. So homo sapiens may possibly be the physical
> >> prerequisite of the human mind or race. Doesn't genetics have a lot
> >> to do with that? Genetics might not be the cause but it might be the
> >> prerequisite to the "imparting" of special cognitive abilities.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > However, there is a robust debate even within evangelical circles at
> the
> >> > moment about monism-vs-dualism. In a recent and very engaging book,
> >> > Joel
> >> > Green of Fuller Seminary argues for an essentially monist position
> based
> >> > on
> >> > both the Biblical and scientific evidence ("Body, Soul and Human
> Life").
> >> > John Cooper of Calivn College is a key proponent of holistic dualism
> >> > ("Body,
> >> > Soul & Life Everlasting"), while William Hasker argues for emergentism
> >> > ("The
> >> > Emergent Self"). It should be noted that even Christians who are
> monist
> >> > or
> >> > emergentist with respect to the "soul" are not reductive materialists.
> >> > In
> >> > other words, all of the foregoing theologians agree that human beings
> >> > are
> >> > more than biology -- that we have some capacity to exercise agency and
> >> > free
> >> > will -- and that God is spiritual and yet ontologically personal and
> >> > real
> >> > apart from any biology.
> >> >
> >> That is interesting. But....
> >> Doesn't that really only apply only in the field of theology? I mean,
> >> it goes toward answering Christian theological questions. But does it
> >> do anything from the viewpoint of science? I suspect it does nothing
> >> from a scientific perspective. So I would expect Dawkins and Meyers to
> >> reject it all as religion. And why shouldn't they?
> >>
> >> And this of course is what bothers me about the whole idea of saying
> >> human psychology is a study of the supernatural. If one is going to
> >> reject *anything* purely because it is religious then why would this
> >> rejection not apply across the board to anything that stems from
> >> religious thinking?
> >>
> >> To list some items commonly rejected by list members:
> >>
> >> A. Some people reject creationism merely because it is religious.
> >> B. Others reject ID merely because (they claim) it is religious.
> >> C. Others reject anything theistic (even TE) because it comes from
> >> religious thinking.
> >>
> >> The invocation of the supernatural is widely claimed as being the kiss
> >> of death to any idea that otherwise may possibly be addressed by
> >> science. And many members here champion that it should be the kiss
> >> of death. So I find it a bit shocking that anyone can claim human
> >> minds are supernatural phenomena and go completely unchallenged.
> >> Someone who does want to challenge this claim of the supernatural of
> >> course will then say it does all come from genetics - it all comes
> >> from nature and natural processes. But the onus is then upon that
> >> person to explain how a design recognizer appears in the human brain
> >> in the absence of the alleged supernatural influence.
> >> At the very least it implies there ought to be a mathematics
> >> undergirding the design detection. The fact we may not have
> >> discovered the math is no proof the math doesn't exist. Wishing the
> >> phenomena onto a supernatural basis seems to me to be more of a God of
> >> the gaps type thing to do.
> >>
> >> And there we go. People reject ideas because they smell of being a God
> >> of the gaps type of idea. And why is the human mind suddenly ok to
> >> be delegated to the gap when it is not ok for other things to be in
> >> the gap?
> >>
> >> I would be happier with someone trying to propose a "mathematical
> >> proof" of the impossibility of a design detection algorithm. That at
> >> least would be a rational approach! Instead, invoking the
> >> supernatural to explain the human mind's abilities seems to me to be
> >> sort of brushing it under the rug to get rid of it. Very easy for a
> >> religionist to do. Its the last thing I would expect a scientist to
> >> do. I've been waiting for members to reject the notion and they
> >> haven't (AFAIK).
> >>
> >> But if one could show that a design recognition algorithm is
> >> mathematically impossible, and if one also rejects supernatural
> >> influence, then one has a _real_ _mystery_ on one's hands. Horns of
> >> a dilemma?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > David W. Opderbeck
> >> > Associate Professor of Law
> >> > Seton Hall University Law School
> >> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Clounch <
> david.clounch@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know quite _where_ to ask my question. But I am bothered
> >> >> by the notion that some on the list seem to have taken the position
> >> >> that the human mind's ability to recognize design patterns does not
> >> >> come from genetics or from nature.
> >> >> Instead some seem to feel the ability comes from God and is thus
> >> >> supernatural in origin. That seems to go along with the idea that the
> >> >> human mind is supernatural in general.
> >> >>
> >> >> First, a disclaimer. I didnt originate the ideas I am referring to.
> >> >> List members did that. Second, I'd prefer to focus on the biology,
> not
> >> >> on the human mind and other subjects. But, when talking about Adam
> >> >> and Eve the very nature of what a human being is comes into play. Is
> >> >> that beyond biology, or not?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not taking any position on this, but I find it interesting as an
> >> >> idea. The idea that human psychology is a study of the supernatural?
> >> >> (of a supernatural phenomena as opposed to a natural phenomena?) I
> >> >> suspect most psychologists would reject that notion. Wouldn't they?
> >> >>
> >> >> But, if it *were* true, then is it worth asking what folks
> believe
> >> >> about the population from whence came the first true humans? Was
> >> >> this "embellishment" with a supernatural mind (or whatever one
> would
> >> >> call it - and I am uncertain as to what the concept should be
> >> >> labelled) was this embellishment applied to a group (a whole
> >> >> population), or was it applied to a single pair as some theological
> >> >> views would claim? If to a single pair, then did the rest of the
> >> >> population not get it at all? (meaning, perhaps, that the non-humans
> >> >> in the group did not have a soul? But Adam and Eve did have a soul?)
> >> >>
> >> >> And the big question is why is this cognitive ability not passed down
> >> >> genetically? Are any reasons put forth?
> >> >>
> >> >> One also has to ask whether the ability to recognize design patterns
> >> >> perhaps precedes the first humans and was in the general population,
> >> >> or even in the population of non-human primates or even other
> species.
> >> >> Is it really associated only with soulful minds?
> >> >>
> >> >> I suspect some may think this line of inquiry not worthy of
> >> >> investigation. But it seems to me that for James's concern to be
> >> >> addressed one must look at the issue of just what it really is, in
> >> >> the minds of members, that made modern humans human. At what point
> did
> >> >> humans get truly human abilities and even souls? Are souls real? Do
> >> >> they correlate with cognitive ability? In other words, what criteria
> >> >> would one use to set aside notions of deism and move toward a
> >> >> naturalistic theism? The answer to that is surely affected by
> >> >> whether one believes what one is interacting with across the dinner
> >> >> table is a supernatural phenomena or a purely natural phenomena.
> >> >>
> >> >> And again, if the essentials of the human mind don't spring forth
> from
> >> >> the genes, then how can science even investigate human origins
> >> >> whatsoever? Can anyone see why I have difficulty with the list
> >> >> discussion here at the beginning of 2009?
> >> >> I am worried about the ASA because it seems the list has stumbled
> into
> >> >> territory, both theologically and scientifically, that I had never
> >> >> even heard of previously.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Dave
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM, James Patterson
> >> >> <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > David wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- do you accept the evidence for an old universe and earth?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, absolutely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If so, aren't you being inconsistent in rejecting the conclusions
> >> >> > population
> >> >> > geneticists draw from the MHC data based on the presumption you've
> >> >> > drawn
> >> >> > from the Bible that there must have been only one pair from whom
> all
> >> >> > present
> >> >> > humans directly are genetically descended? The YEC's, after all,
> make
> >> >> > exactly the same argument about the "days" of creation, the age of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > earth, and the nature of Noah's flood.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I don't think so, not at all. First, and as I said, I don't
> think
> >> >> > MHC
> >> >> > data should be used much, if at any, for this kind of thing. I am
> >> >> > also
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > sure how that ties into the next part of your statement. But the
> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> > for the Big Bang, the age of the universe, the age of the earth,
> >> >> > that's
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > "hard" science – physics and cosmology. It is much more defined and
> >> >> > clear
> >> >> > than the biological sciences. It's very hard to argue with
> >> >> > mathematical
> >> >> > equations like those that define our universe. However, the math
> used
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > Ayala's paper is *much* less clear, and the math used in the entire
> >> >> > field of
> >> >> > population genetics isn't nailed down yet…just look at some of the
> >> >> > references. We don't understand this field well enough in general,
> >> >> > and I
> >> >> > don't accept or understand the science well enough to take a
> position
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it is impossible to have an n=2. I think that some very good
> evidence
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > their being an n=2 is that is what the Bible tells us, and it seems
> >> >> > reasonably clear that an n of 2 is what is indicated – I don't see
> a
> >> >> > way
> >> >> > around that. The strongest argument I see for there being some
> other
> >> >> > answer
> >> >> > to this is Dick Fischer's argument that it was an n=2, but they
> were
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > first ancient Hebrews, not the first man. However, I have to state
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > don't accept that position (although I haven't read his book yet,
> >> >> > it's
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > order Dick). The Bible seems generally clear that it refers to the
> >> >> > origins
> >> >> > of mankind – all of mankind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The essential foundation of my argument is that in general, what
> the
> >> >> > Bible
> >> >> > says and what science says agree. YOM doesn't mean a literal day.
> The
> >> >> > Hebrews didn't mean a global flood. How Genesis is interpreted is
> >> >> > obviously
> >> >> > not easy, and not clear, or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- you say, ". . . we see the emergence of man in the correct
> >> >> > *general*
> >> >> > location, from (at least) a small population, sometime in the
> past."
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > used
> >> >> > to find this kind of argument from RTB et al. somewhat persuasive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, let's be honest: central Africa is not the same "general
> >> >> > location"
> >> >> > as Mesopotamia,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, it is. First off, I think it' East Africa. But I'm not going
> to
> >> >> > split
> >> >> > hairs. And even if you draw that circle down to Tanzania and
> >> >> > Ethiopia,
> >> >> > it's
> >> >> > still in the same general location. We do not understand mans
> origins
> >> >> > well
> >> >> > enough to put him in anything other than Africa. That's fine. It's
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > Europe, it's not Australia, it's not America, it's not Russia, it's
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > China, or India. God said he created man west of Eden. Africa is
> west
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > Eden. Sure, most of it is also south…but it's still west. I don't
> >> >> > really
> >> >> > think that's worth belaboring…it agrees well enough. Science puts
> the
> >> >> > origins of man in Africa, and the first civilizations in
> Mesopotamia.
> >> >> > The
> >> >> > Bible put's the creation of man west of Eden, and Eden in
> >> >> > Mesopotamia.
> >> >> > That
> >> >> > agrees well enough for me. Here's the map again, since it wasn't in
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > email. http://www.pattersonhistory.net/map01.jpg
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and "sometime in the past" -- if that is 150 kya or so even for
> >> >> > Mitochondrial Eve -- doesn't fit with the Bible's description of
> the
> >> >> > culture
> >> >> > into which Adam's immediate descendants were placed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am working on that presently…and answering this thread is
> >> >> > detracting
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > from that work…
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Moreover, "(at least) a small population" isn't two individuals. I
> >> >> > am
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > expert either, but my sense is that for the MHC data to be
> accounted
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > by
> >> >> > a single pair, you'd either have to have (a) diversification of the
> >> >> > MHC
> >> >> > at a
> >> >> > truly astonishing (not just 'fast') rate; or (b) a whole set of
> >> >> > miracles
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > mentioned in scripture.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not mentioned???? God creates man and woman, breaths their
> spiritual
> >> >> > nature
> >> >> > into them, and you tell me that's not mentioned? Come now. He
> doesn't
> >> >> > give
> >> >> > out details on how He did it…or what He did. If so the world would
> be
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > much
> >> >> > simpler place. But I think it's clear – He did something.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Isn't it more parsimonious to suggest, as John Stott did in his
> >> >> > Romans
> >> >> > commentary, that the "image of God" and "original sin" are
> >> >> > essentially
> >> >> > spiritual qualities rather than genetic ones? It seems to me that
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > removes much of the burden of trying to tie Adam to the genetic
> >> >> > record.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's not a bad point, but parsimony can be taken only so far.
> >> >> > Occam's
> >> >> > razor can slice down to the bone of metaphysical naturalism, if you
> >> >> > let
> >> >> > it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps Adam lived in (or was removed from the "garden" into) a
> >> >> > context
> >> >> > where there were other "humans," but this says nothing of the
> >> >> > spiritual
> >> >> > aspects of those other homo sapiens who shared the physical world
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > Adam
> >> >> > and his descendants for a time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I don't like that either, but I haven't been able to conceive
> >> >> > of a
> >> >> > way
> >> >> > to pull these threads together more tightly without resorting to
> >> >> > presuppositional logic that ultimately leads to YECism.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't deny that PC is a tough position. The one thing that
> brought
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > here
> >> >> > to this position is the strong Biblical foundation, and the thing
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > keeps
> >> >> > me here is that there is a model. Models can be revised based on
> new
> >> >> > data,
> >> >> > and other opinions and interpretations can be incorporated. This is
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > true
> >> >> > of YEC – the entire foundation of their position is based on a
> >> >> > unbalanced
> >> >> > premise that only the Bible is true, and not science (at least not
> >> >> > anyone's
> >> >> > science but their own). The PC position is balanced: both Bible and
> >> >> > science.
> >> >> > The TE position is (in my opinion) a bit unbalanced the other way –
> >> >> > too
> >> >> > much
> >> >> > reliance on only natural explanations. I know most of you don't
> agree
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > that, but hey if I wasn't here testing your positions, you wouldn't
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > having so much fun. J
> >> >> >
> >> >> > God bless, JP
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > David W. Opderbeck
> >> >> > Associate Professor of Law
> >> >> > Seton Hall University Law School
> >> >> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, James Patterson
> >> >> > <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've finally been able to get back to this thread (and sub-threads)
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > read
> >> >> > them. I wanted to go read the Ayala manuscript first. I have read
> it
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > well
> >> >> > as the comments on the article, and a few other related articles.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I must also classify myself as "not an expert" in this field.
> >> >> > However, I
> >> >> > find it quite interesting to look at how often the words "presume"
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > "presumption" are used in the Ayala article. If you look at this
> >> >> > article
> >> >> > specifically and the field as a whole, there is significant
> >> >> > controversy
> >> >> > over
> >> >> > the various models and how to interpret the results…more so than I
> am
> >> >> > comfortable with. This is reflected in the comment in reply to the
> >> >> > Ayala
> >> >> > article, as well as several other articles (see below).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All that as an aside. The main issue is the size of the "n"
> required
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > pass
> >> >> > thru a bottleneck. Ayala argues there wasn't even a bottleneck, but
> I
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > most would agree there is plenty of evidence that there was at
> least
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > not more bottlenecks. So I am not going to belabor that issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ayala's point is that, for a given chunk of DNA, including mtDNA
> >> >> > chunks,
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > may be able to trace that chunk back to a common ancestor. However,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > next
> >> >> > chunk of DNA will be from a *different* ancestor, not the same one,
> >> >> > implying
> >> >> > not one, but a population of "Eves". I am NOT familiar enough to
> >> >> > state
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > certainty, but I thought that the mtDNA was looked at more as a
> whole
> >> >> > than
> >> >> > other DNA? It's size is about 15-17 kbp, and codes for 37 genes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When we get to the point of whether there was a n=2 vs an n=X,
> Ayala
> >> >> > puts X
> >> >> > at ~100,000. He describes how it would be impossible for all the
> >> >> > alleles
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the MHC to survive a population smaller than (I think) about 10,000
> >> >> > sexually
> >> >> > active humans, which equates to a total population that is of
> course
> >> >> > larger.
> >> >> > The issue here of course is the MHC region. If one is going to look
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > comparative regions and molecular clocks, it seems to me that the
> MHC
> >> >> > has
> >> >> > got to be the *worst* possible choice to use. Within the field of
> >> >> > immunology, this region of the genetic code is sometimes called the
> >> >> > G.O.D.
> >> >> > (interesting, yes?) region, for Generator (or Generation) Of
> >> >> > Diversity.
> >> >> > Mutation rates here can be quite rapid. See the Hogstrand or
> >> >> > Carrington
> >> >> > articles below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Given that, Ayala's work does not seem to distinguish itself any
> >> >> > greater
> >> >> > than other studies on this topic. And that gets to the heart of the
> >> >> > matter:
> >> >> > From a strict, naturalistic, population genetics viewpoint, a
> >> >> > bottleneck
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > an n=2 is unacceptable. The only way to have an n=2 bottleneck is
> if
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > couple were quite special in some way or ways, and that isn't
> >> >> > "natural".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank God, I am not a strict naturalist. J
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The integration of science and faith is why we are here. You may
> want
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > find a strict natural explanation of everything, because you think
> >> >> > that's
> >> >> > the way God works at all times. If you extrapolate this to the
> >> >> > extreme,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > TE viewpoint becomes the DE viewpoint. I think I mentioned this in
> >> >> > another
> >> >> > thread recently. At the very least, I think you should at least
> >> >> > consider
> >> >> > this to be a prime example of Russell's OSP hard at work. You may
> be
> >> >> > able to
> >> >> > track the lineage of the descent of man genetically, but tracking
> the
> >> >> > hand
> >> >> > of God is another matter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It becomes very difficult, very quickly, to reconcile God's
> creation
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > spiritual selves (as well as original sin) with a (large)
> population
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > humans that evolved slowly. No matter how you slice it, God's
> >> >> > handiwork
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > present. And if we are going to presume the hand of God being
> >> >> > involved,
> >> >> > then
> >> >> > strict naturalistic explanations will ultimately fail.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, if you *presume* that God was involved, and that God
> created
> >> >> > Adam
> >> >> > and Eve (as the Bible tells us), and look at what the natural
> >> >> > sciences
> >> >> > show
> >> >> > us, we see the emergence of man in the correct *general* location,
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > (at
> >> >> > least) a small population, sometime in the past. How exactly, may
> >> >> > remain
> >> >> > unclear. We will have to save the time question for later, tho. J
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice. As
> for
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > my family, we choose God.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > God bless,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > James P
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A few interesting references:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gibbons A, (1993). Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die. Science,
> >> >> > 259(5099):1249-1250.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ayala F, (1995). The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human
> >> >> > Origins.
> >> >> > Science, 270(5244):1930-1936.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Erlich HA, Bergstrom TF, Stoneking M, and Gyllensten U (1996). HLA
> >> >> > Sequence
> >> >> > Polymorphism and the Origin of Humans (in reply to Ayala's
> article).
> >> >> > Science, 274(5292):1552-1554.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Watson E, Forster P, Richards M, Bandelt HJ, (1997). Mitochondrial
> >> >> > footprints of human expansions in Africa. Am J Hum Genet,
> >> >> > 61(3):691-704.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Carrington M, (1999). Recombination within the human MHC.
> >> >> > Immunological
> >> >> > Reviews, 167(1):245-256.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gray M, Burger G, Lang BF, (1999). Mitochondrial Evolution.
> Science,
> >> >> > 283(5407):1476-1481.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Högstrand K, Böhme J, (1999). Gene conversion can create new MHC
> >> >> > alleles.
> >> >> > Immunological Reviews, 167(1):305-317.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cann R, (2001). Genetic Clues to Dispersal in Human Populations:
> >> >> > Retracing
> >> >> > the Past from the Present. Science, 291(5509): 1742-1748.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Stumpf M and Goldstein D, (2001). Genealogical and Evolutionary
> >> >> > Inference
> >> >> > with the Human Y Chromosome. Science, 291(5509):1738-1742.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Zimmerman S, (2001). Population size at the time of mitochondrial
> >> >> > eve.
> >> >> > Human
> >> >> > Evolution, 16(2):117-124.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Curnoe D, Thorne A, (2003) Number of ancestral human species: a
> >> >> > molecular
> >> >> > perspective. Homo, 53(3):201-224.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hagelberg E, (2003). Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity?
> >> >> > Implications for Mitochondrial Eve. Trends Genet, 19(2):84-90.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_evolution_and_allelic_diversity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to 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 Tue Feb 24 16:14:46 2009