Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

Dennis & John:

Am I to take it that you both have, at least in part, rejected a special
creation because of the problem of evil?

If so, how do you avoid Manichean tendencies?

For it is not enough to say that God instituted secondary causes. It
is, to quote my daughter, still His fault. Instead, one must take it
out of God's Hands, make it something that He cannot do, if you intend
to "defend God."

It is not enough to say in a free-will defence that God wanted to give man
(or nature) free will. Something must be said that makes it clear that
God had no choice. E.g., it is impossible, even for God, that man be
free and that he not be capable of evil. Of course, one would have to
explain what kind of "impossibility" this is (physical, logical, etc.).
In postulating this "impossibility" one must explain why this is not a
separate, autonomous god.

bill

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Dennis Venema wrote:

> Yes, this example is a nice one because its implications are readily seen even by non-specialists. The point to drive home, however, is that this is but one example of thousands and thousands that converge on the same conclusion.
>
> While science doesn't offer absolute proof, it can offer what my PhD supervisor used to call the "Bl**dy obvious test" - apologies for the language. Comparative genomics is well into "bl**dy obvious" territory on this issue. Only large-scale denial or misrepresentation of the issue will suffice for an anti-common descent apologetic.
>
> So, in my view, game over for YEC and OEC, as well as for anti-common descent forms of ID.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 15/10/09 2:57 PM, "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "but the presence of pseudogenes don't imply the game is over for YEC"
>
> Yes in a way it does because at least in the case of psi GULO, it forks their design argument by making them defend why God wanted humans to have scurvy.
>
> This example of a pseudogene alone convinced me to become a TE. Any other example could conceivably be argued to have some type of unknown or unappreciated design characteristic to it but this one with its obvious deleterious effects is really hard to defend.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:42:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra
>
> I don't think this is really the case. The standard answers probably apply here: "God made it that way", and "it may be that we will find a use for the so'-called junk DNA and pseudogenes" serve pretty well as answers, just like "the earth is young, even though it may appear old". Whether such arguments are convincing for those reasonably acquainted with the strength of the evidence is another matter, but the presence of pseudogenes don't imply the game is over for YEC.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra
>
> I see your point.
>
> How about this "We don't self-manufacture vitamin c; we win." Then you explain why we don't have vitamin c internally produced, unlike our descendents, because of bad gene copies (the pseudogene argument using vitamin c as a poster-boy).
>
> Although fossils are easier too comprehend, it seems like the YEC's also have a good time-tested twist/story on them, at first glance. But when it comes to pseudogenes, the argument is over, and there's no good comeback for a YEC.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 16 08:50:12 2009