Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 19:42:28 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)"

    Flagella seem to be a big thing among ID/IC advocates. We know that
    several genes are involved in producing the materials necessary for
    flagellar assembly. We do not know that we have a complete set, nor
    precisely what most of them do. Mechanism is difficult to tease out,
    though we're getting better at it. We know about a number of other gene
    products in protozoa, essentially because they belong to the same family
    of genes encountered in other kingdoms. As to analogs among other
    protozoa, we have so far sequenced one species, /Plasmodium falciparum/,
    with a little more sequencing of part of another malarial parasite for
    comparative purposes. However, these sequenced species are sporozoans, a
    different phylum or subphylum from flagellates. In the face of how little
    is known about protozoan genes, to claim that the lack of explanation of
    flagella shows that they were inserted from without is about as clear a
    case of /ad ignorantiam/ as I am likely to find. I submit that a fallacy
    is a poor foundation for a dogma. But then dogmas are more easily
    formulated with little or no basis.

    In your claim about a "random product of natural laws," you are assuming
    that orderly process can always be detected, and that anything that
    follows natural law is unguided. Neither assumption is correct. The
    decimal value of pi meets all known tests for randomness, but is as
    rigorously determined as anything can be. Second, Luther already
    recognized that natural law is God's hidden guidance, the "masks."
    However, to claim no more than that God does it is void of explanatory
    power. To deny divine guidance is deism, process theology (/pace/
    Griffin), etc., not biblical theism. Still, it is popularly argued by YEC
    that natural processes proceed independently, on their own. This is
    exactly what metaphysical naturalism holds, and what you are arguing. If
    you cannot differentiate theism from materialism, you've defaulted to

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:20:37 -0400 "Jay Willingham"
    <> writes:
    > The law has a saying, "res ipsa loquitor", e.g. "the thing speaks
    > for
    > itself".
    > To say that man was not made in the image of God and is merely a
    > random
    > product of natural laws over time gives a mighty tool or proof to
    > those who
    > declare their race of men or their level of intelligence/reasoning
    > speed as
    > rightfully dominant of other races or mental capacities.
    > The experience of technocracy (that the brightest are therefore the
    > best,
    > Marxism/socialism) has shown empirically that intelligence is not a
    > marker
    > for wisdom. In fact a case could be made that intelligence begets
    > pride
    > which is the enemy of wisdom.
    > I did not say ID was nonsense, I simply asked for examples.
    > To say there are too many examples of ID nonsense to summarize even
    > one of
    > them makes me wonder just who is being nonsensical.
    > Jay Willingham

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 19:46:18 EDT