Primary causes are the creative acts of God. Could also be miraculous
interventions. Secondary causes are what follows from natural law. This
is standard language. To a theist, these are under divine control at all
time. But we do not detect the divine through secondary causes, which is
what science can study. Human understanding goes beyond secondary
causation, but without the possibility of absolute proof. Materialism can
be consistent.
I was once immersed in YEC, but found I was misinformed by some who
should have known better. The practice continues in the claim that all
the radioactive disintegration happened quickly and would raise the
temperature of the earth beyond the point of evaporation of every
substance, yet the temperature did not get above 150 C. As for the
chromosome fusion, Dennis gives a good summary in the post that I go\t
immediately before yours.
Dave (ASA)
on, 13 Jul 2009 22:28:20 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> Dave:
>
> I've got to get to bed, but you must understand I am not nitpicking,
> although I am attempting to pick your brain. I'm interested in how
> you see this process. I admit to being confused by your apparent
> certainty. I would think that you could admit to the possibility of
> being wrong, but you don't seem to think that is possible. I'm
> frankly fascinated by such confidence.
>
> But perhaps I misunderstand you. For the first time it seems that
> you are making an exhaustive claim: either the chromosomal pattern
> came about by God's "direct" action or it did not. This I can agree
> with. You then say, it seems, that the "did not" part consists
> entirely of "secondary causes." Do you mean by "secondary causes"
> what we generally mean by physical law, and would that entail
> unintentional, inanimate forces?
> Is it your view, then, that this logical division is entirely
> subsumed under either God's direct action or evolutionary processes,
> where evolutionary processes are here defined as any process
> employing unintentional, inanimate forces, known or unknown. We
> might say then that you conceive of all events are being caused
> either directly by God or by what we call natural processes, where
> natural processes require no explicit reference to God. A natural
> science, then, must be an evolutionary science. There can be no
> other. If this conclusion is not correct, then we have missed
> something in our division of possibilities.
>
> bill
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:53:33 -0700, dfsiemensjr
> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> > Bill,
> > You're nitpicking because what I and others are noting is not what
> you
> > want to accept. Indeed, I take it as a matter of fac\t that anyone
> > determined not to believe something can find a "reason" not to
> believe
> > it. As a matter of experimental fact, the attitude of an
> individual
> > biases radically his acceptance of information. Indeed, bias can be
> > induced by the emotional load of pictures presented before other
> pictures
> > or claims. Any argument I give has to be tremendously restricted,
> but let
> > me note the high points.
> >
> > The observed chromosomal states of apes and humans came about
> either by
> > direct action of the Creator or by mediate action through
> secondary
> > causes. Can this be proved? No, but it is basic to a theistic
> position.
> >
> > The ape pair and human individual chromosomes match in their
> order. The
> > argument that they could not match enough for reproduction is
> false
> > because all kinds of duplications, transpositions, deletions, etc.
> do not
> > prevent meiosis and mitosis. So all investigators who do not have
> an ax
> > to grind recognize here (and in the genes from bacteria through
> higher
> > plants and animals) that it looks as though the pattern is
> evolutionary.
> >
> > If the deity produced these results directly and miraculously, it
> would
> > mislead all honest investigators.
> >
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:01:33 MDT "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
> writes:
> >> Dave:
> >>
> >> When you use the word "must" in
> >> "the development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a
> >> creative
> >> miracle, must be an act intended to deceive." what kind of "must"
> do
> >> you mean.
> >>
> >> Do you mean that it is impossible that "the development of
> >> chromosomes we
> >> observe" could have been caused by a creator who had no intention
> to
> >> deceive?
> >> Putting this another way, if God does not deceive, the
> development
> >> of
> >> chromosomes certainly occurred by some evolutionary process, a
> >> process that
> >> still has not been specified. Do you mean to leave the process
> >> unspecified,
> >> other than that God didn't creatively "intervene," or do you
> think
> >> that the
> >> process is more certain and specific than that?
> >>
> >> Surely any deductive conclusion need be not only valid, but sound
> to
> >> be true.
> >> It seems, however, that you are certain the premises of this
> >> deduction are
> >> true, and therefore the conclusion, if valid, is absolutely true.
> >>
> >> It is not completely clear what those premises are. But it is
> >> pretty clear to
> >> me that you believe the conclusion is both deductively valid and
> >> sound.
> >>
> >> I suggest that even should we leave out God or any other
> >> supernatural being
> >> that the premises of your argument will be questionable.
> >>
> >> Can you take a run at proposing what those premises might be?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >>
> >> dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> said:
> >>
> >> > Randy's post answers some of the questions. The other part is
> >> that the
> >> > development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a
> >> creative
> >> > miracle, must be an act intended to deceive. What is the
> >> probability that
> >> > God is the deceiver? that Satan is the creator? As to
> certainty
> >> being
> >> > found only in deductive logic, note that every proof absolutely
> >> depends
> >> > on the axioms provided as the basis of proof. Otherwise, which
> of
> >> the
> >> > geometries has a grip on absolute truth? Euclid, Riemann and
> >> Lobachevsky
> >> > do not agree.
> >> > Dave (ASA)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:30:53 -0600 (MDT) Bill Powers
> >> <wjp@swcp.com>
> >> > writes:
> >> > > Dave:
> >> > >
> >> > > I take it that you believe you have an exhaustive set of
> >> > > possibilities
> >> > > for the genetic sequence of humans with regard to chromosome
> 2.
> >>
> >> > > There
> >> > > are, then, no other possibilities. I also take it that you
> >> regard
> >> > > possibilities 2 and 3 to be highly unlikely, if not
> impossible.
> >>
> >> > > This
> >> > > means that you believe of all the possibilites there is only
> >> one.
> >> > >
> >> > > The only way that I've ever seen such a conclusion to be the
> >> case is
> >> > >
> >> > > when we are dealing with logical truth. I take it then that
> you
> >>
> >> > > believe
> >> > > it to (nearly) be deductively certain that the human genetic
> >> > > sequence with
> >> > > regard to chromosome 2 developed by an evolutionary process.
> >> > >
> >> > > What can we say of this evolutionary process as you conceive
> it.
> >>
> >> > > Whatever
> >> > > it is, it must be different from possibility 2, wherein God
> >> created
> >> > > the
> >> > > human genetic sequence to look like the first possibility.
> It
> >> seems
> >> > > that
> >> > > we can at least distinguish possbility 1 and 2 by process.
> In
> >> the
> >> > > second,
> >> > > God (or some other cause) established the human genetic
> sequence
> >>
> >> > > without
> >> > > fusion and in the first by fusion. That fusion took place,
> as I
> >>
> >> > > indicated
> >> > > previously, does not entail that it occurred by any
> "standard"
> >> > > evolutionary process. If this is to make sense, then, you
> must
> >>
> >> > > believe
> >> > > (if what I've said is correct) that if it took place by
> fusion,
> >> then
> >> > > it
> >> > > must have taken place by an "evolutionary" process. I take
> it,
> >>
> >> > > then, that
> >> > > by "evolutionary" you mean "by steps in time," which is just
> >> what
> >> > > any
> >> > > notion of fusion would entail. Hence, by referring to the
> human
> >>
> >> > > genetic
> >> > > sequence with regard to chromosome 2 as a fusion it is a
> >> tautology
> >> > > that it
> >> > > took place according to an "evolutionary" process.
> >> > >
> >> > > If this makes sense, it seems that you can imagine only two
> >> > > possibilites.
> >> > > Either the sequence regarding chromosome 2 took place
> according
> >> to
> >> > > some
> >> > > evolutionary process (by steps?) or miraculously.
> >> > >
> >> > > It also seems since you are certain (or as certain as anyone
> can
> >> be)
> >> > > that
> >> > > this sequence of human genetic coding can only have arisen
> >> according
> >> > > to an
> >> > > "evolutionary" process, then you are equally certain at least
> >> some
> >> > > of
> >> > > biological history must have occurred in this manner.
> >> > >
> >> > > Let me be clear by what I mean by "certain." While what you
> say
> >> is
> >> > > not as
> >> > > certain as a deductive conclusion like, All men are mortal,
> >> Socrates
> >> > > is a
> >> > > man, therefore Socrates is mortal, it seems that you in
> effect
> >> take
> >> > > it to
> >> > > be equally as certain, since you offer the "only" other two
> >> > > possibilites
> >> > > as a jest.
> >> > >
> >> > > If all, or most, of what I have said here is correct, I can
> >> > > understand why
> >> > > so many people on this list find the attitudes of YECs and
> >> perhaps
> >> > > even
> >> > > IDers to be so utterly frustrating, stubborn, and ignorant.
> It
> >> is
> >> > > as if
> >> > > you were trying to explain fractions to a small child and
> they
> >> > > simply
> >> > > could not grasp, or even stubbornly refused to grasp, that
> 3/4
> >> was
> >> > > the
> >> > > same as 6/8. And no matter how many times you went over it,
> no
> >>
> >> > > matter how
> >> > > many pictures, and no matter how many object lessons, they
> would
> >>
> >> > > simply not
> >> > > believe it.
> >> > >
> >> > > It seems to me that a contingent science of a contingent
> world
> >> could
> >> > > never
> >> > > make such claims, but perhaps I am wrong.
> >> > >
> >> > > bill
> >> > >
> >> > > dfsiemensjr wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Bill,
> >> > > > You are giving generalities, but there are specific reasons
> >> why
> >> > > the
> >> > > > single human chromosome came from two in the earlier ape
> line.
> >> The
> >> > > human
> >> > > > chromosome has two centromeres, one functional and one
> >> degenerate.
> >> > > The
> >> > > > sequence of DNA is the same in the two halves of the human
> >> > > chromosome as
> >> > > > in the two ape chromosomes. So we have either the
> development
> >> of
> >> > > the one
> >> > > > chromosome from two during evolution or else the Creator
> made
> >> it
> >> > > look, to
> >> > > > all honest investigators, as if that happened. I forgot,
> there
> >> is
> >> > > one
> >> > > > other possibility, Satan, in opposition to God, is the one
> who
> >>
> >> > > created
> >> > > > man in such a way that human beings would be led away from
> >> God.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To the best of my knowledge, the fusion of chromosomes is
> very
> >>
> >> > > unusual.
> >> > > > There are small parts, genes, that move from one part to
> >> another
> >> > > (jumping
> >> > > > genes), or viral genes that become incorporated in the
> genomes
> >> of
> >> > > more
> >> > > > advanced creatures. There are deletions, duplications and
> >> > > rearrangements
> >> > > > within chromosomes and genomes, along with trisomy and
> >> polyploidy.
> >> > > But
> >> > > > these also lead to the essential certainty of evolution or
> to
> >> the
> >> > > > deliberate misleading of humans. I don't know whether the
> lie
> >> by
> >> > > the
> >> > > > deity or by the devil is worse.
> >> > > > Dave (ASA)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:55:41 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com>
> writes:
> >> > > >> Apparently chimpanzees, and other primates, have 48
> >> chromosomes
> >> > > >> while humans only have 46.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> From an evolutionary standpoint this is suppose to be a
> >> problem.
> >> > > >> Why is that?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It is presumed that chimps and humans have a common
> >> ancestor.
> >> > > >> So I suppose the reasoning is that if one ancestor of the
> >> > > >> common ancestor has 48 chromosomes and another has 46
> there
> >> > > >> is a problem in believing they had the same ancestor.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The reasoning might be that since chromosome number is
> >> > > >> directly related to inherited traits that it might be
> >> > > >> difficult to see how an ancestor with 48 chromosomes could
> >> > > >> produce (in no matter the number of steps) an offspring
> >> > > >> with only 46.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Now I, being naive, don't see why this is suppose to be so
> >> > > >> great, or insurmountable a problem.
> >> > > >> After all, if evoultion is correct, something like this
> must
> >> > > >> be commonplace. Presumably the earliest of creatures had
> >> fewer
> >> > > >> chromosomes than later species. So somehow chromosomes
> must
> >> be
> >> > > >> added and I'm not certain why it should any more mysterious
> >> how
> >> > > >> chromosomes can be added than that they can be taken away.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> In any case, Ken Miller asserts that this is so great a
> >> problem
> >> > > that
> >> > > >> unless it were resolved evolution must be wrong.
> >> > > >> I am astonished by this statement and can hardly believe
> that
> >> he
> >> > > >> really
> >> > > >> means it. In fact, it seems far more obvious that the
> reason
> >> he
> >> > > >> says this is because he believed at the time of the
> statement
> >>
> >> > > that a
> >> > > >> resolution was already at hand.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> In any case, the resolution supposedly is that the second
> >> > > chromosome
> >> > > >> fused
> >> > > >> with another chromosome, and since chromosomes come half
> from
> >>
> >> > > each
> >> > > >> parent,
> >> > > >> this would result in 46 chromosomes instead of 48.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> All I want to say about the supposed evidence that a
> >> chromosome
> >> > > had
> >> > > >> fused
> >> > > >> is that it does not entail that evolution occurred, rather
> it
> >> is
> >> > > >> merely
> >> > > >> consistent with an evolutionary development.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The story, I suppose, would be something like that the
> >> ancestor
> >> > > of
> >> > > >> both
> >> > > >> man and chimp has 48 chromosomes, but somehow one
> chromosome
> >> in
> >> > > man
> >> > > >> became fused to another, while that of the chimp and other
> >> > > primates
> >> > > >> did
> >> > > >> not.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The notion of fused chromosomes is not necessarily
> associated
> >>
> >> > > with
> >> > > >> an
> >> > > >> evolutionary process, unless one means by evolution that
> >> > > something
> >> > > >> that existed previously was used in the creation of
> something
> >>
> >> > > new.
> >> > > >> Such a view of evolution could as well be the work of an
> >> > > intelligent
> >> > > >> designer, which is why I am confused by Ken Miller's
> >> apparent
> >> > > >> confidence that evolution is clearly a superior
> explanation.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The very notion of fusion appears to entail a process
> >> whereby
> >> > > >> something
> >> > > >> changed from not being fused to being fused. The notion
> >> appears
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> entail that there was a time when they were not fused and
> >> > > somehow
> >> > > >> became
> >> > > >> fused. It is true that if we presume that such processes
> >> must
> >> > > take
> >> > > >> place,
> >> > > >> then fusion would be consistent with that presumption.
> But
> >> does
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> evidence for fusion really entail that a fusion has taken
> >> place?
> >> > > >> In order for fusion to have taken place we must have a
> time
> >> when
> >> > > >> they were not fused. But the mere fact that they appear
> to
> >> be
> >> > > fused
> >> > > >> does not entail that they were ever not fused.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It seems then that here, as in all of science, we proceed
> >> > > >> abductively,
> >> > > >> from theory to evidence and then back again to theory.
> >> > > >> But in all cases the science finds a theory that is
> >> consistent
> >> > > with
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> evidence. There is no way to argue from the evidence to a
> >> > > unique
> >> > > >> theory. The supposed discovery of the fusion of
> chromosome
> >> #2
> >> > > is
> >> > > >> consistent with an evolutionary story, but it could just
> as
> >> well
> >> > > be
> >> > > >> consistent with other theories and explanations. This is,
> >> of
> >> > > >> course,
> >> > > >> true of all our knowledge of the physical world.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> What is surprising to me is that some think that this
> >> discovery
> >> > > is
> >> > > >> of great importance. Yet it seems to me that the result
> is
> >> more
> >> > > >> or less assured by the supposed discovery that chimp DNA
> and
> >> > > >> human DNA are so very similar.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I do not understand, I confess, why chromosomes are so
> >> > > important.
> >> > > >> It seems to me that they are mostly an artifact from an
> >> earlier
> >> > > >> state of biological science. Hence, I don't understand
> why
> >> > > fusion
> >> > > >> would
> >> > > >> seem so important. But, then again, I probably don't
> >> understand
> >> > > why
> >> > > >> the bunching of DNA that can be observed under a microscope
> >> > > should
> >> > > >> be so
> >> > > >> important.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> bill
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> >> > > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> ____________________________________________________________
> >> > > > Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8tUKKlJe20hbqoACsgvh
> >> > irkGmEuZlbfaRJBehRLyfffQgi77eI/
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 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 Jul 14 14:23:33 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 14 2009 - 14:23:33 EDT