RE: Ignorant antievolutionists

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 20:08:51 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Making Progess? (was I'm tired...)"

    I am sorry to be so slow answering this but I was in Florence this week at a

    Peter wrote:

    >Glenn Morton wrote (21 May 2002 21:08:30 -0700):
    >> Yeah, lots of anti-evolutinists are that ignorant. Ignorant is
    >your word so
    >> I will use it.

    >I have not checked any of the publications you cite, in order to see
    >what they write. But assuming your reading is correct, I should not have
    >used this strong term.
    >I apologize to all those concerned for using the word "ignorant".

    Now, why do you apologize for characterizing things correctly? It was your
    word not mine, but I do think it was correct. I am ignorant of many things
    in this world. Being ignorant is not a shame in any way shape or form. What
    is the shame is when people refuse to look at the areas they are ignorant in
    or write in areas they haven't fully thought out. All those authors were
    and are saying in various ways what you say shouldn't be said. Yet now you
    want to draw back from your assessment of that knowledge. Unless and until
    christians call their brothers and sisters to account for their silly
    statements in the area of apologetics, we will NEVER have an apologetic
    worth having. If it was ignorant before you found out who was saying it, why
    isn't it ignorant after?

    >I certainly know the following authors are NOT ignorant at all: Charles
    >Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon,
    >Russell Maatman. I don't know and have not read Robert Gange. I should
    >like to check what they all actually wrote. I might get around to it

    Being ignorant isn't the same as being stupid. Ignorant is merely the lack
    of knowledge. And when we make mistakes from lack of knowledge, even if we
    are knowledgeable in other areas, we are still ignorant. I agree that these
    men are very smart. But that doesn't make their arguments safe from
    presuppositions or poorly thought out concepts.

    >The passage you quote from Gange also talks about a protein sequence,
    >however, not only DNA sequences as you say. This makes the error (for
    >this case) less serious, as there is a code degeneracy between DNA and
    >protein. Further extenuating circumstances are that he wrote this in
    >1986, when very much less was known about protein synonyms, and that
    >even today, we still don't know how much of this apparent "synonymy" may
    >be due to species-specific requirements or advantages (indeed, Gange
    >does mention optimal efficiency!). Neither do we know whether
    >independently evolved (i.e. completely different) protein families
    >performing exactly the same function exist at all.

    We also don't know, even today, which sequences are 'optimally efficient'
    yet Gange gets over enthused and claims that we know it.

    >The second and third extenuating circumstances also apply to what you
    >quote from Maatman.
    >Bradley apparently admitted an error. Have you discussed this point with
    >anyone else of these authors (forget about Gish)?

    Peter, my critiques of Christian apologetics are quite well known. I have
    been posting on this particular issue since 1995 on this list and the
    evolution list. I did talk to Charlie about it once, a long time ago. While
    I haven't discussed it with Gish, I know that when Russ used to be on the
    list, there were several discussions of this exact issue and I have posted
    on this issue here for many years. So, why don't you try to tell some of
    these other guys that one sequence won't work. I have been trying for a
    really long time but they don't often listen.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Peter Ruest []
    >Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 7:31 AM
    >To: Glenn Morton; ASA list
    >Subject: Re: Ignorant antievolutionists

    >> I want to highlight this question by Peter Ruest.
    >> He is criticizing me for believing that anti-evolutionists hold
    >that one and
    >> only one sequence of amino acids is capable of performing a
    >given function.
    >> I cite below, lots of anti-evolutionists who do precisely that. And they
    >> are not all YEC. Peter wrote:
    >> >
    >> >Of course, all this has nothing to do with the idea that there can be
    >> >only one active cyt.c sequence. I wonder where you get that idea from.
    >> >Do you know of anyone ignorant enough to hold it?

    >Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
    ><> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
    >"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 12:43:16 EDT