RE: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

David Clounch said:
"Bernie has stated a number of times that his main reason for being an atheist is he found pseudogenes. I think this conflates two things that shouldn't be associated. "

That is incorrect. What I said a number of times is that pseudogenes demonstrate that humans descended from an apelike ancestor (beyond a reasonable doubt). Pseudogenes only convince one of common descent. It caused me to become a TE for over a year. Before that I would have been probably in ID (which means to me, I don't know if I'm YEC or OEC, or a mix, so just be a vague neutral ID'er... if pressed, though, likely an OEC, but I also spent time as a YEC or at least very sympathetic to YEC).

The reason I left Christianity is because of many other reasons, such as thinking that the Bible is totally disqualified, and above all, I don't think the supernatural soul exists. Since I think there is no supernatural soul, it follows there is no resurrection, so no need for Christ. But there are a multitude of reasons (a cloud of witnesses in my appraisal), evolution being one of many.

David Clounch said:
"Bernie has stated that natural selection acting on mutations is not the mechanism of evolution. I think he needs to back that up with pointers to the literature where the same claim is made."

I think natural selection is one of many evolutionary mechanisms, with more to be discovered. More info here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml

This is why it I get disgusted when people put down "Darwinian evolution" because so much as happened in the 100 years since Darwin. Behe, leave the dead man alone (he can't defend himself.. he's dead! ;-) People should critique modern science if they want to be useful.

...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Jim Armstrong
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

So, the materialists and atheists have pseudo-genes? Is that what you are all saying?

Bernie has been arguing against TE all along. He is convinced that theism is dead wrong. Fine.
But given that this is the case, how does anyone construct a scenario where a pro-TE solution argues for TE but against materialism? If you cannot do that then what has happened is the TE's have climbed in bed with the materialists. I would think that is very undesirable from any TE's viewpoint. Even the appearance would seem undesirable.

It seems there are different types of evolutionism, if I may use the word "ism" gently. The real question is whether there is a scientific theory of evolution that isn't evolutionism but does support TE rather than denying theism. (Call this scenario #1).
If that is not the case then TE could be one of two other things:

2. evolutionism (and scientism)
3. pure religion

My belief is #1 is the most valid possibility.

Bernie has stated a number of times that his main reason for being an atheist is he found pseudogenes.
I think this conflates two things that shouldn't be associated.

Bernie has stated that natural selection acting on mutations is not the mechanism of evolution. I think he needs to back that up with pointers to the literature where the same claim is made.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro99@q.com<mailto:jarmstro99@q.com>> wrote:
OK, - but you willing to travel with the catchphrase?
My point was that they already know the words offered. They don't know pseudogenes unless accompanied by an explanation.
By the way, my email spellchecker did not recognize the word.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

John Walley wrote:

Actually I beg to differ. I explained pseudogenes to my 12 and 13 year old son and daughter and they understood right away. I got the standard response of &quot;maybe they do something we don&#39;t understand yet&quot; but once I elaborated on that they at least understood what it meant and admitted it was convincing. I have since overheard my daughter using it in her discussions with ther friends.

Using the &quot;typo&quot; analogy which I did, I don&#39;t think it is that hard at all for fresh young minds to grasp the concept and it obvious implications. The resistance comes over time as their science faith worldview develops and the wedge is driven in that all science is suspect and it is deception propagated by atheists.

John

Jim Armstrong wrote:

Bernie - I have to agree more with Keith on this one. Other than folks

who are already tuned into this argument, how many folks do you think

would have a string that would resonate to "pseudogenes"? Most would

wonder, either verbally or silently, "What was that word again?"

Fossils they know; sue-do-whatever is another matter.

This is much the same problem as one I've spoken to in the past, namely

that scientific arguments don't do as much good as reasonably sound

plausibility arguments, using familiar language. The tradition and

consensus based distrust factor clouds any other less familiar basis

for explanation or argument.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie wrote:

  In watching

some Kenneth Miller videos

awhile back, he was sharing the mantra "We have the fossils; we win."

  I don't

think it is a good evolutionist

mantra, because a YEC can say "We have the same fossils; we just

interpret them

differently."

  My

suggestion for evolutionists is to say "We

have pseudogenes; we win." The Young Earther's don't have a valid

response for

explaining pseudogenes, and there are thousands of them in the human

genome

(not to mention in all the other animal genomes too).

  ...Bernie

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 Fri Oct 16 10:09:13 2009