Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Sat Mar 17 2007 - 18:16:58 EDT

*In other words, reason is something God gave us for a higher purpose.*


*Reason is what gives rise to all the other things, religion, art, etc which
we often associate with the IOG.
Not so sure about this; reason is necessary for such things, but I'm not
sure I'd agree that reason "gives rise" to them.

In any event, none of this says that* any* being with *any* ability to
reason at *any* level possesses the IOG. And I'd bet if you pressed Kant a
little further, you'd find him talking about human reason in it's
fully-orbed capacities, not, say, a chimp's ability to reason it's way out
of some puzzle.

BTW, do you really agree with this statement by Kant: *"In the physical
constitution of an organized being, that is, a being adapted suitably to the
purposes of life, we assume it as a fundamental principle that no organ for
any purpose will be found but what is also the fittest and best adapted for
that purpose"?*

Kant clearly didn't know about all those things people like to tease ID'ers
with, like psuedogenes or the seemingly backwards wiring of the human eye.

On 3/17/07, Glenn Morton <> wrote:
> David O. wrote:
> >Exactly. We are all connected, as the Bible suggests. This supports my
idea it doesn't weaken it. I don't claim to
> >know who THE Adam & Eve were, except that the Bible says there were such
> >
> >Unfortunately, this is as pointless as it always seems to be. You don't
listen, you don't care to dialogue, you just
> >want to diatribe. Have at it.
> All I am asking is that if you say something supports your view, that it
actually does support your view. You claim that Adam is neolithic, and then
you say we are descended genealogically but not genetically from him. The
problem is that the time to the MRCA (most recent common ancestor), which
you had said was Adam, is actually 2000 years ago and that means you have
the wrong time, yet you claim that this supports your view--it doesn't.
> Secondly, as to listening, so long as you equate the words 'listening',
with 'agreeing with you', then I guess I will be guilty of said charge. I
argued my case from your assumption, that Adam was the MRCA and he can't be
if Adam is neolithic. I can't change the logic and I cant change the facts,
so don't get mad at me for merely pointing out what contradictions you have
in your assertions.
> **
> Michael Roberts wrote:
> >I have been following this discussion with despair.
> >
> >However we take Genesis there is simply not enough information there to
draw parallels with palaeoanthropology or
> >the date and location of the Flood. All attempts to do so have been found
to be chasing after wind.
> >
> >It is best to say "we don't know"
> Michael, I don't want to send you off again following me around the
internet posting nasty little notes about me, but frankly, scientists
shouldn't believe that which is not real. I mean, isn't science supposed to
be about that which is real? So, if we are dealing in science/theology, but
the science is supposed to be irrelevant to the problem, then why have this
forum at all? What is the purpose of it if science is not supposed to say
anything to the Bible and the Bible is not supposed to say anything to
> And if we don't know, what happened, because we can't trust anything in
Genesis, why not start a movement to de-cannonize it? If it is such a bad
thing, get rid of the creation story and all these problems.
> As to chasing wind, one could have said that to Champolian before he broke
the hieroglyphics. See, you have given up but you want everyone else to
follow suit. Why, I don't know, unless you dont' wish to be proven wrong.
If someone like me chases wind all one's life, what is it to you? Why does
my demand for reality, which drives me in this area, bother you so much?
Don't tell me that it is because the YECs are misled in this area, because
your view certainly isn't going to fix that either.
> ****
> George M wrote in another thread;
> >Does the honorable gentleman not realize that the historical Tubalcain is
the foundation of our faith?
> Typical arrogant, liberal knee-jerk reaction to anyone that disagrees with
them. People claim that Tubalcain is neolithic, I provided alternative
information along those lines and you, instead of dealing with what I
presented and showing why the Hebrew phrase, 'brass and iron' doesn't mean
what I give other biblical examples of it meaning, (rebellion), chose merely
to go the irrational route and mock. Mocking might be fun, but at base it
is anti-intellectual and school-boyish--and I might add, beneath you George.
> ***
> David O wrote in another post:
> >But OTOH, so what? Almost nothing about a concept such as IOG can be
"ruled out." Again, all you're suggesting
> >is that I should prove a negative. I also can't "rule out" that there
are space aliens somewhere that possess the IOG,
> >and that they dropped Adam and Eve off when they built the pyramids and
Aztec temples. The Discovery Channel
> >has made a mint airing shows that suggest nutty stuff like this. But
OTOH, I don't see any warrant at this point for
> >asserting affirmatively that any such thing is true, and the best and
most coherent explanations rather strongly suggest
> >it isn't. The burden of proof remains on you, just as it remains on
people who claim aliens built the pyramids.
> Well, I dont' know about space aliens and pyramids, but the IOG must do
something useful other than be a name. And while I agree, that no one can
PROVE what it is, one can offer interesting possibilities, and I think the
things I have cited for it are quite possibly it. Immanuel Kant, in a
passage I read two days ago says it quite well without using the words IOG,
in this amazingly anti-evolutionary(but based upon the concept of a perfect
creator), pre-Darwinian passage.
> "In the physical constitution of an organized being, that is, a being
adapted suitably to the purposes of life, we assume it as a fundamental
principle that no organ for any purpose will be found but what is also the
fittest and best adapted for that purpose. Now in a being which has reason
and a will, if the proper object of nature were its conservation, its
welfare, in a word, its happiness, then nature would have hit upon a very
bad arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry out this
purpose. For all the actions which the creature has to perform with a view
to this purpose, and the whole rule of its conduct, would be far more surely
prescribed to it by instinct, and that end would have been attained thereby
much more certainly than it ever can be by reason. Should reason have been
communicated to this favored creature over and above, it must only have
served it to contemplate the happy constitution of its nature, [14] to
admire it, to congratu­late itself thereon, and to feel thankful for it to
the beneficent cause, but not that it should subject its desires to that
weak and delusive guidance, and meddle bunglingly with the purpose of
nature. In a word, nature would have taken care that reason should not break
forth into practical exercise, nor have the presumption, with its weak
insight, to think out for itself the plan of happiness and of the means of
attaining it. Nature would not only have taken on herself the choice of the
ends but also of the means, and with wise foresight would have entrusted
both to instinct."
> "And, in fact, we find that the more a cultivated reason applies itself
with deliberate purpose to the enjoyment of life and happiness, so much the
more does the man fail of true satisfaction. And from this circumstance
there arises in many, if they are candid enough to confess it, a certain
degree of misology, that is, hatred of reason, especially in the case of
those who are most experienced in the use of it, because after calculating
all the advantages they derive--I do not say from the invention of all the
arts of common luxury, but even from the sciences (which' seem to them to be
after all only a luxury of the understanding)-they find that they have, in
fact, only brought more trouble on their shoulders rather than gained in
happiness; and they end by envying rather than despising the more common
stamp of men who keep closer to the guidance of mere instinct, and do not
allow their reason much influence on their conduct. And this we must admit,
that the judgment of those who would very much lower the lofty eulogies of
the advan­tages which reason gives us in regard to the happiness and
satis­faction of life, or who would even reduce them below zero, is by no
means morose or ungrateful to the goodness with which the world is governed,
but that there lies at the root of these judgments the idea [15] that our
existence has a different and far nobler end, for which, and not for
happiness, reason is properly intended, and which must, therefore, be
regarded as the supreme condition to which the private ends of man must, for
the most part, be post­poned." Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the
Metaphysics of Morals, Transl. By Thomas K. Abbott, (Indianapolis: The
Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1949), p. 12-14
> In other words, reason is something God gave us for a higher purpose.
Reason is what gives rise to all the other things, religion, art, etc which
we often associate with the IOG.
> glenn
> They're Here: The Pathway Papers
> Foundation, Fall, and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Opderbeck []
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:07 PM
> To: George Murphy
> Cc: Glenn Morton;
> Subject: Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists
> This means that the most recent common ancestor
> of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple
> of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the
> people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive
> today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient
> historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be
> counted among everyone's ancestors." Steve Olson, "The Royal We," Atlantic

> Monthly, May 2002
> Olson is a geneticist. This is clearly NOT within the time frame you
> And if 3000 years ago, EVERYONE on earth is our ancestor, who one earth is
> Adam and Eve? Which one of those 50 million is THE Adam and Eve?
> On 3/16/07, George Murphy <> wrote:
> > Comments below in brackets {}.
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> >
> > ***
> >
> > George M wrote:
> >
> > [GLM No, I meant what I said. I introduced Wells as 1 example of a
> > scientists whose claims for a recent origin of humanity doesn't appear
to be
> >
> > motivated by religious concerns. The extent to which I'm qualified to
> > debate the issue is irrelevant. Your license to practice distance
> > psychoanalysis is suspended.]
> >
> > Aw shucks, shrinks make such good money. But, I can analyze your
> > above. Wells DOESN'T claim a recent origin of humanity. You are doing
> > you said YECs do. You are making Christians look ill-informed by missing
> > what Wells is saying. I tried to point out your error, but you are now
> > persisting in saying what Wells isn't saying. The age of the Y
> > is not the age of humanity, no matter how much you or I might wish it to
> > so. It just represents the age of the lucky guy whose chromosome was the
> > most widespread. Go back 10,000 years and there would have been some
> > who didn't have that guy's y-chromsome but there probably would have
> > some other guy dated 80 or 90,000 years ago, from whome all y
> > were descended at that time. The y-chromosome Adam is a moving target.
> > years hence, it will be a guy who lived 55,000 years ago or so.
> >
> > If you don't understand this, then you are out of your depth here.
> >
> > {GLM From the program for Wells talk at Kent State - Stark, 1 March
> > "Wells analyzed DNA from thousands of men living in isolated populations
> > concluded that all humans can be traced to an African tribe that existed
> > 60,000 years ago." Does that mean that all humans descended from _only_

> > that tribe? No. Does that in turn mean that the origin of humanity
> > be placed at ~60,000 years? That of course depends on how one is
> > "humanity."
> >
> > I won't pursue this further here because it would lead you to claim that
> > have some stake in a recent origin of humanity, which I don't. More on
> > below. & also more on being out of one's depth.}
> >
> > [GLM You make wild claims & then pass by in silence the demonstrations

> > that they're false. What I refuted here was the claim that people are
> > arguing that the creation accounts are poetic and therefore CANNOT (not
> > not or may not) convey truth about the natural world - i.e., that the
> > nature of poetry precludes the possibility of conveying such truth.]
> >
> > George, I want to laugh here. I cited Jan de Konig who argued that it
> > poetic, and you didn't respond to that, effectively ignoring it, and
> > charge me with ignoring facts that falsify your claims.
> >
> > If you believe that the Genesis accounts are telling us something true
> > historically, then it should be easy for you to answer the question,
> > exactly is it telling us about history. I asked that simple question
> > got the diversion above about me not answering your comments. If you
> > believe it is historical, then what is historical. If you can't tell us
> > that, then I doubt your assertion above is nothing but a red herring.
> >
> > 1st, Jan didn't say that the account_s_ were poetic, which was your
> > But that's minor. More to the point was your claim that someone is
> > "poetic, THEREFORE not conveying truth about the natural
world." Whether or
> > not I think it does convey any such truth is not the point. Someone may
> > think it doesn't simply because he thinks the accounts disagree with the
> > historical & scientific data or because of the difference between the 2
> > accounts, but that doesn't mean he's reaching that conclusion simply
> > one or the other account is "poetic."
> >
> > This is a small error on your part which could easily be attributed to
> > hyperbole on your part & it would be easy enough to corrent it. Why
> > you? Or do you just not understand the distinctions?
> >
> > When you wrote:
> > [GLM Again you ignore the refutation of your 1st extravagant claim & go
> > to a 2d. Your claim was that theologians never want to think anything
new &
> >
> > I pointed out that that's nonsense.]
> >
> > I went back and looked for some kind of refutation. I simply don't know
> > the heck you are referring to. What did you refute. What 1st extravagant
> > claim are you referring to?
> >
> > {GLM That theologians never want to think anything new. Not a direct
> > quote but you said (on either the 10th or the 11th - I've omitted the
> > original but it's in my reply of the 11th) "They do if one refuses to
> > anything new or novel about the accounts. They fit together quite
> > within my interpretation, but, of course,
> > theology wouldn't really want to think anything new, now would we?"}
> >
> > As the the second, I see theologians only thinking along lines of, it
> > us YEC history or it tells us nothing that we can claim to be
> > observationally verifiable. If you can point me to theologians who
> > that the Bible is telling us something observationally verifiable while
> > the same time accepting the facts of modern science, I would be
> > Even the framework theory in my opinion doesn't fall out side of the 'it

> > ain't history' school of thought. But your claims that there are new
> > of thinking are easy to make, but harder to document especially if you
> > the world with the division I do.
> >
> > {GLM No, what you said in your last post was an even more restrained
> > condemnation of theologians without qualification: "And theologians on
> > daily basis show utter contempt for science by ignoring it or saying
> > about science which aren't true and then acting like one is an idiot to
> > challenge them on it--this even if the theologian hasn't studied the
> > No qualifications, no "some theologians," many theologians," even less
> > of any specific theologians. No recognition that there are any
> > who know anything about science and/or are careful to talk to those who
> >
> > What you display is an "utter contempt" for both theology and
theologians -
> > without any distinction among them. Which wouldn't be quite so bad if
> > gave any indication that you knew anything about theology beyond the
> > simplistic "the Bible must be true" claims.
> >
> > There is another point worth making here if you're able to listen. Your
> > accusations against "theologians" are far too extreme but it's certainly
> > true that many theologians - & I include parish pastors there - aren't
> > well informed scientifically as they should be. That's precisely one
> > why a great deal of my ministry is devoted to seminary teaching, leading
> > workkshops for clergy, writing for clergy & theological jornals &c about
> > such matters. m& that should explain why I spend little time in direct
> > debate with atheists: One can't do everything. I don't deny the
> > of confronting atheist & other anti-Christian arguments, but not
everyone is
> > called to do everything & there are only 24 hours in a day. If you can
> > the importance of trying to educate Christians, & especially clergy,
> > matters of science & technology you will perhaps see why we don't all
> > our attention to debating atheists & perhaps even apologize for your
> > implication that those of us involved in the former type of work are
> > cowards, dupes, &c. But I won't hold my breath.}
> >
> >
> >
> > [GLM I.e., if I don't believe your resurrected stillborn ape-like
> > story then I don't believe God had a miraculous hand in creating
> >
> > Oh, George, have some nuanced thinking for a change. It isn't my theory
> > which I refer. It is to the Bible, which you seem incapable of believing

> > If you don't' believe the Bible where it says :
> >
> > "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> > his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> >
> > I don't care if you reject my theory, but if you decide that God didn't
> > actually perform the activities in the above statement, then you simply
> > to admit that you don't' beleve there is a single shred of historical
> > reality contained in Genesis 2:7. And if God didn't do that, then
> > miracle DID God do when mankind was formed?
> >
> > {GLM Unfortunately you don't think it's necessary to believe it either.
> > You think it's sufficient to present "something close to Genesis 2:7"
> > below) but the simple fact is that God resurrecting a stillborn ape
> > forming man of the dust of the ground & breathing into his
nostrils. You
> > don't believe it really happened as the Bible says but manage to
> > yourself that since something that might have happened & sort of sounds
> > it is the same thing & thus pacify your fundamentalist conscience.
> >
> > You also assume with no justification that the important point about
> > is that it's a "miracle." But of course the text doesn't say that or
> > any of the common biblical terms for what we call a miracle. Isn't it
> > possible that the text is simply saying that we are made to be living
> > by YHWH from the common stuff of the earth? While it is not talking
> > evolution, that's quite consistent with a scientific understanding -
> > the crucial addition of "by YHWH," the God of Israel. That's what the
> > says & I believe it. As for believing it as literal history, no, I
> > believe that & neither do you.}
> >
> > See, this is the problem. I at least present something that is close to
> > Genesis 2:7. You simply believe it didn't happen but then turn around
> > try to tell everyone what a wonderful book the Bible is and that it
> > true theology. How would we know it teaches true theology if everything
> > says is false? Do you believe Genesis 2:7?
> >
> > {GLM This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.}
> >
> > [GLM I judge your claims by the standards you want them to satisfy &
> > them wanting. OTOH I want my arguments to be judged by appropriate
> > theological standards - which include agreement with well-confirmed
> > but are hardly limited to that.]
> >
> > George, you speak so abstractly that there is not much one can say to
> > What standards? Who set up these theological standards? George Murphy?
> >
> > {GLM How about - well, the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds (which the ASA
> > statement of faith says are "brief, faithful statements of Christian
> > doctrine based upon scripture") for a start? Or to be really radical,
> > about speaking as if Jesus Christ made some difference to your
> > Your discussions seldom if ever say anything about him. The fact that
> > seem unable to even think of such things as theological standards shows
> > lack of interest in & knowledge of serious theology. In your words,
> > "out of your depth" when you try to talk about theology.
> >
> > & please don't insult my intelligence with any "if we can't believe in a
> > literal Adam/Jonah/floating ax we can't believe in the resurrection of
> > Christ" drivel. "Many Christians do" is a sufficient refutation of
> >
> > And
> > if you want to be in agreement with well-confirmed science, then why do
> > ignore genetics which clearly says that there has been no common human
> > ancestral pair for at least 5 million years? I can't change that. I wish
> > weren't true. I wish every genetic system and every gene showed the same
> > kyr age because only in that manner can we have a REAL Adam and Eve who
> > parents of all humanity, but the fact is that they don't. We have two
> > choices, George, ignore it, or incorporate it into our theology. You
want to
> > ignore it. I don't.
> >
> > Do you even understand why all genes should show the very same age if we
> > all descended from a recent pair of ur-parents?
> >
> > {GLM I realize now that some of your statements about my supposed
> > scientific ignorance stem from your unwarranted notion that I think that
> > of present-day humanity can be traced to a single couple. If you had
> > what I've written on these matters you would realize that that's not the
> > case (E.g., on p.114 of my June '06 PSCF article: "But it does seem
> > unlikely that the present human race can be traced to a single
> > pair" - followed by reference to genetic data which may suggest that I'm
> > quite as ignorant of the subject as you imagine.)
> >
> > Time out for your expressions of shock, horror, and denunciations of my
> > refusal to believe the Bible. All I'll say not believing in an
> > Adam" is a considerably smaller departure from the Christian tradition
> > leaving Christ out of my theology.
> >
> > 2d, you seem to think that I have some theological commitment to a
> > origin of humanity. I don't, as again you'd know if you'd read what
> > written.}
> >
> > Well, George, one can say that about the talking snake, the floating ax
> > head, and indeed, the resurrection itself. What real evidence do we have

> > today concerning the resurrection? We have some claims that people saw
> > risen Lord, but in fact, there is not one shred of physical evidence
> > remaining. So, if physical evidence becomes your standard, then by
> > definition, there can't be evidence for the resurrection--the body is
> >
> > {GLM This is so childish! Of course I only referred to the lack of
> > possibility of _physical_ evidence for your "Adam" because I didn't
think it
> > was necessary to point out that there is no _historical_ evidence of any
> > kind - documents &c - for such an event as there is for the resurrection
> > Jesus.}
> >
> > Is there any real evidence that David slew Goliath? Is there any real
> > evidence that Samuel was consecrated by his parents? All we have is the
> > word of the Bible, but we also have the word that "God formed man of the
> > dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
> > man became a living soul." But, there is no real evidence for that
> > By your standard, you reduce the Bible to an evidentiaryless set of
> > assertions.
> >
> > When I demanded that our solutions fit the details of what it is we are
> > studying George wrote:
> >
> > [GLM Not enough for you but that's your problem. & again, the claim
> > your ape scenario agrees with Gen.2 in "details" is a vast
> >
> > So, is this an argument for sloppy research and ignoring data we don't
> > It seems that if one doesn't want to deal with the details of an area of
> > science, then one is saying it is ok to be sloppy and haphazard. Yes,
> > is my problem, George, I won't settle for slop. I did that when I was a
> > and I won't accept it anymore because it is self-deception.
> >
> > [GLM Again I am not holding a "double standard of judgement." I am
> > judging your cliams as you want them to be judging but I have not said
> > those criteria are the appropriate ones for theology. But OK, here's a
> > prediction that comes naturally from my approach: If we encounter
> > intelligent ETs we will find them to be sinful - or "fallen" if you
> > (This is a slight adaptation of an argument of Bob Russell's.)]
> >
> > We probably have about as much chance at verifying this as we do at
> > verifying my ape. Do you have one that is more likely to be verified? I
> > would say that this illustrates that you don't apply the same standard
> > you as you do to me.
> >
> > {GLM Of course we don't know if there are ETs but there's a real
> > possibility whereas there's zero possibility of getting any evidence for

> > your fantasy.}
> >
> > [GLM You want not just "verification" - which I have - but theological
> > prediction of novel scientific facts. I don't accept that as a criterion
> >
> > theology but see my comment above.]
> >
> > You can claim verification but until you lay it out specifically in
> > (which means dealing with the details sometheing you above eschewed),
then I
> > deny that you have verification.
> >
> > {GLM & you don't _have_ agreement in details either - just a hope that

> > maybe you will someday.}
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 17 18:17:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 17 2007 - 18:17:38 EDT