RE: [asa] RE: Analogies for pseudogenes... a tipping point for the ASA? ([asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE)

It has nothing at all to do with materialism. That is your hopeful excuse to brush off the evidence that disproves the 'de novo' creation of man hypothesis. To prove my point (that it has nothing to do with materialism), Francis Collins agrees with me (more accurate, I agree with him since he's the expert), and obviously Francis Collins is no 'materialist' since he's an outspoken evangelical Christian witness. That charge was a nice little red herring to throw in there.

In my opinion, the only reason for rejecting the pseudogene evidence for 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' for common descent (and against YEC/OEC 'de novo' creation for man) is failure of understanding the argument correctly. This is where a Christian scientific institution could come in handy, and the ASA is supposed to be such. My opinion- the tipping point for officially rejecting YEC/OEC "de novo' creation for man hypothesis has arrived given the pseudogene evidence.

Exactly 'how' God works in evolution, if at all, can be debatable, I agree. But the issue of 'de novo' creation of man should be resolved by now, by those in science.

...Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Clounch
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Murray Hogg
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Analogies for pseudogenes... a tipping point for the ASA? ([asa] Re: On the Barr-West exchange and ID/TE)

Murray,

Correct.

Bernie is a materialist. He either doesn't know he is a materialist, or doesn't know what materialism is, or doesn't know what the arguments for and against materialism are, or he doesn't want to talk about materialism. So he talks about everything else. But down at the core is materialism. And his discussions on the "everything else" is based on those assumptions.
What is really unfair, mostly to himself but also to the rest of us, is he has evaluated both Christianity and science based upon his materialism. Assumptions which none of the ASA members share. So its an endless "talking past each other". A complete waste of time.

Nobody will be able to help him unless he (or they) confront his materialism head on.
Since he avoids the subject, that's not happening. I grow weary of the list.
I do appreciate hearing the background of John Walley - now I understand him a little bit better. But I think some of you big guns who have the capability and who want to should engage Bernie on materialism. I don't want to. I am tired of the endless prattle - and like Iain I dumpster his email with a spam filter.

But why doesn't the ASA just make a case against materialism in general? Not in a discussion with Bernie. In a discussion with the world. Thats one of those FAQ types of areas.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au<mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> wrote:

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
" Sorry to report, but your microcode analogy isn't quite on the money. Remember we're not talking about God A copying the work of God B - but rather the one God engaging in two creative acts."
The illustration is to prove the point of copying, versus 'de novo' creation. It holds if the copying is done internally at the same company or by a competitor. The point: if someone claims something is copied vs. made 'de novo,' we can detect that (like ID claims... oops, ID now proves evolution, common descent!).

" So a better analogy would be Code A from company A, vs Code B from company A - in which instance we'd probably expect shared code when the two programs are seeking to do the same thing."
You'd expect shared code from the same company, but not shared bugs, unless the workers are incompetent. God is supposed to be perfect. So if He created 'de novo' with bugs, he wasn't too bright... not the God which is posited by Christian apologists.

" Presumably, as regards the rest, a person who wanted to refuse an evolutionary interpretation of the DNA data might posit that (1) we don't know that the "junk" DNA is, in fact, junk, and (2) the "corruptions" in the code are the result of the fall."
For 1, it is obvious that a. the gene works in ancestors b. we have a messed-up copy that no longer does that function which was done in the ancestor.

For 2, the fall doesn't explain why pseudogenes are messed-up for both apes and man, but not lower lifeforms. Did the apes fall with man, but not the mice?
"Indeed, your "fodder for future evolution" remark could well play into the hands of objectors: perhaps the reason God put this material in the genome was precisely to allow for future contingencies?"
Bottom line, if 'de novo' creation were true, there's no reason to have left over junk in there unless you want to create an illusion of descent. And Christians don't like that because they don't think God is a liar.

...Bernie

Bottom line, actually, is this is all about YOUR assumptions about what God would, or wouldn't do.

Until you realize that others don't share your assumptions, you'll continue to talk past anybody who tries to engage with you - as you've done above.

Blessings,
Murray

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 18 14:39:33 2009