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

From: John Walley <>
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 21:06:26 EDT

I believe that all the species were guided to some point. If some choose to say that CD excludes any guidance then that is their arbitrary choice but there is no reason why it should, other than they are seeking support to discredit theism, but I wouldn't agree to give them that. I don't accept that CD implies unguided.
In my opinion CD is only relevant in that it puts the lie to the fiat creation mechanism that most of us grew up believing. It doesn't take anything else away from humanity or our faith or God creating us in His image. It just means He did it gradually and "dust of the earth" is figurative. 
I do believe there was "intelligent intervention with humanity" but it wasn't neccessarily from the outside nor was it neccessarily during humanity's development. It could have all all been embedded originally in the creation of life. I don't rule either of the above out, only that they are not neccessary and we can't know anyway so no use in making a doctrine out of them.
So the answer to your question is no, it doesn't change the relevance of CD since the only real relevance it has anyway is establishing a link with other existing life forms which is just how God chose to create us.  It doesn't have anything to do with whether life was guided or not.

--- On Tue, 10/28/08, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

From: Schwarzwald <>
Subject: Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 7:55 PM

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.

--- 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 21:07:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 28 2008 - 21:07:10 EDT