RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)

From: James Patterson <>
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 06:53:35 EDT

You said: Why do you thing the actual gene has to be completely gone to
prove God's existence or action?

> There is no reason for the GULO pseudogene to be present in the human


Yes there is. If God had custom designed the DNA of man (or any organism for
that matter) to be "perfect" then it would have been like putting a signpost
there stating "God was here". I think we live in a time when the evidence
for design is becoming clearer and clearer, but man has known for centuries
about the "fitness" of nature to support life. However, God doesn't leave
signposts, because if he did, then we would not have near the choice-making
capacity that we do now. As a matter of fact, one could argue that we
wouldn't have any choice, if the evidence for design was so clear. It is my
position that the evidence of design is clear to those that choose to see
it, but can be explained away, at least superficially, by those who choose
not to see it (*not* saying you fit that picture sir, that would be more
like Dawkins). The question here is: how DID God design DNA to do what he
wanted it to do, and when? How would the DNA be shaped to create man; how
would God do it? It is purely presupposition on the part of TE to say that
it would be a "natural" process from beginning to end, because it *does not*
fit the extant data.


> It's only there because it was once useful - and the fact that other
primates have the same mutation

> in it means we have inherited it from a common ancestor.


Not necessarily so. We *may* have inherited it from some common ancestor. It
may equally be possible that we are simply related genetically to some
common ancestral archetype, that God used during the creative process. I
realize that theory is very long out of use (precedes Darwinism), but unless
and until you find all the transitional intermediates, including that
missing link, it remains potentially true, in my opinion. And there are a
whole lot of missing transitional intermediates (not) out there. J


So, the loss of it may have been providential - but that still doesn't
change the fact that it is compelling evidence for common descent.


I do see the handiwork of God in nature. You would seem to say that anything
"natural" isn't part of God's handiwork. That seems an odd position to take.
I see everything as God's handiwork. Did you follow the Timaeus threads? We
went over very similar ground, repeatedly.

No, unfortunately. I wish I had time. I don't believe that nature isn't part
of God's handiwork, but I equally don't believe that it *has* to be natural
to be God's handiwork.

> I have no problem with miracles (why is this such a common misconception
about ECs)?


Because it's apparent sir, in the insistence on a natural mechanism for CD,
and evolution, when the model as a whole has many faults and holes.


> What "gaping holes" did you have in mind?


A short list would include abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, the various
near global destruction of all flora/fauna and its return, transitional
fossils (I admit there appear to be a few, but not nearly as much as there
should be), the lack of enough time for evolution to happen, the hundreds
examples of convergence especially at the molecular/genetic level, and the
fact that DNA can't encode for information at the secondary or tertiary
levels, yet it's obviously present. There's more, but that's enough to


> Also, how do you see OEC as superior to TE based on the data?

Because it addresses those holes.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 28 06:54:27 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 28 2008 - 06:54:28 EDT