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

From: Jay Willingham (
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 21:27:52 EDT

  • Next message: Keith Miller: "It's Out!"

    I think I may not have made myself clear. Dave Siemens said I was arguing
    for metaphysical naturalism. You said it is popularly argued by YEC that
    natural processes proceed independently, on their own. Thank you for giving
    me a YEC position I can disagree with.

    I do not think anything has ever occurred or will ever occur without first
    passing by the throne of God and having his full attention, including the
    hair that falls from our heads. To me the Lord permits it all, actively.

    If I learned anything from the study of relativity, I learned all of time,
    matter. and space is a created thing. To me God looks at all of time,
    matter and space, all of creation, like we look at a coffee table. It is
    all right there right now for the Lord. Therefore, he can tailor it all to
    the benefit of those that love him and are called according to his purposes

    Jay Willingham

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "." <>
    To: <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

    > Jay,
    > 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
    > atheism.
    > Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 21:27:44 EDT