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

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 19:55:49 EDT

Hey John,

I'm probably best classified as a TE myself. One thing I'm curious of,
though - I accept CD in a biological sense. But I've seen criticisms by
scientists (This was directed at Behe in particular, in this case) where
it's said that if any particular species was directed/guided, CD would be
'broken' because the concept is based on an uninterrupted, unguided view of
evolution. Ergo, guidance would constitute a break.

Keep in mind, I'm not a scientist, and I can tell right off that any
scientific view of evolution as 'unguided' in such a sense is no longer
purely 'scientific'. But if there was some kind, any kind, of outside,
intelligent intervention with humanity at some point in their developmental
history, would that in your view change CD's relevance?

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM, John Walley <> wrote:

> >'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too big for its
> britches sometimes, isn't >it John?
> No I don't think so. I too was an RTB PC like James for years until I read
> Francis Collins and found someone who dealt with the scientific evidence
> honestly. That is why I say psuedogenes are the smoking gun for CD. Once you
> accept that, the only intellectually honest conclusion is TE, which is where
> I came to, albeit kicking and screaming.
> I understand and empathize with the RTB PC position and I know giving it up
> is painful, but it just doesn't work.
> And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE is not a
> miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed release one.
> TE and OEC are not that far apart on most issues except this very one but
> it is a major one. It means the difference between science and faith, and
> relevance and scorn.
> But I will rephrase my use of "'the scientific and thinking community" to
> "the rational and thinking community". I know there are exceptions like YEC
> including scientists but again I contend that the only rational conclusion
> of the evidence of CD is TE. All this hand waving and appeals to "appearance
> of imperfection" arguments are embarassing and just really immature.
> Thanks
> John
> --- On *Tue, 10/28/08, Gregory Arago <>* wrote:
> From: Gregory Arago <>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
> To:, "James Patterson" <>,
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 6:49 PM
> John Walley wrote:
> "In contrast, your insisting that man had to be a separate third miracle is
> in conflict with the science, specifically the evidence for CD and is what
> earns Christianity the scorn of the scientific and thinking community. And
> it is solely based on a desired theology and literal reading of Genesis that
> is totally superfluous and unnecessary. / This is why it matters."
> 'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too big for its
> britches sometimes, isn't it John?
> No, I don't agree with your hypothetical appeal to 'the scientific and
> thinking community.' There are many thinkers and scientists where I live who
> acept the miracle of humanity's uniqueness. Surely, in any case, wrt your
> appeal, you'd have to properly ask a sociologist and not a natural scientist
> about 'the community', the former who actually study this instead of simply
> guessing.
> And anyway, what's wrong with humanity being deemed a 'miracle'? This would
> seem to be quite consistent with the Abrahamic faiths (quite a large
> percentage of the world's population; 'scientists' being only a very, very
> small part). One can only imagine that if the terms 'evolved miracle' were
> substituted for 'created miracle' you'd be quite fine with it.
> This is why James could suggest that TE and OEC are not so far apart after
> all. :)
> ------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 28 19:56:35 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 28 2008 - 19:56:35 EDT