Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves (now 'evolving' labels)

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 22:23:15 EST

Hi Merv,

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Merv Bitikofer <> wrote:

> David Clounch wrote:
>> And I find theology to be less than worthless. Theology has absolutely
>> nothing to do with whether to get a certain chemical reaction one needs all
>> the reactants to be present.
>> You may be correct that Behe has certain ideas about sequences of
>> precursor configurations. But those, to me, are strictly a matter of
>> scientific analysis, and have nothing to do with theology.
>> Labeling Behe a creationist seems dirty pool to me. He may be an
>> unconventional thinker. That doesn't make him a creationist.
>> Before labeling someone, how about if some criteria are laid down first?
>> For example, if person A believes in idea B then they are adherents of "ism"
>> C? Given a standard of those types of definitions then it may make sense
>> to try to put someone in a box. Without such a standard what these labels
>> really mean is a political bashing is being engaged in. Guilt by
>> association is one of the techniques used in political bashing.
> Theology less than worthless!? Were your speaking of 'process theology'
> specifically?

No, I didn't mean to say that. I was referring to theology in general. Not
trying make a case, it's just my own lame personal opinion. I suppose its a
bit overstated...theology has a place, but I don't find the questions of
theology to be terribly interesting.

How does chemistry relate to the usefulness of any theology?

It doesn't. Thats the point. The mechanics of chemistry doesn't overlap
with theology.
I think if one is somehow concerned with the religious beliefs of another
person doing chemistry then one has gone astray. Science is supposed to
eliminate the differences between people doing the science, not accentuate
them. So I don't care if the chemist herself believes in voodoo or
communism or Islam or Christianity or whatever. It just doesn't matter what
her religion is.
To say that her math is off because of her religious motivations is

> Also -- even though I am not a YEC, I still insist that I am a creationist,
> and that this need not preclude a full acceptance of common descent. So the
> 'dirty pool' and guilty associations involved here may, for some of us, be
> that the label 'creationism' got popularly hijacked into meaning YEC
> creationism: a coup de grace of the YEC community along with the more
> militant new atheists. If I understand your last paragraph correctly, we
> may all have to be always unpacking our labels in the foreseeable future
> because the single word (e.g. Creationism) has been so broadened.

Sadly, I think you are probably correct.

But may I point out the humorous irony of some folks who are so down on
creationism then themselves going on to imply that the human mind is a
supernatural phenomena? The idea that the human mind gets some of its
capabilities from somewhere other than just genetics? It strikes me as
being downright anti-evolution. But perhaps I am missing something that is
obvious to others. I just wouldn't expect someone who firmly believes in
evolution to ever propose that humans have capabilities that don't come from
God's created nature but instead come from somewhere else.

And am I the only person in the entire world who thinks that design may
turn out to support naturalism better than it supports the supernatural?
I thought many years ago there would actually be many Christians who would
reject notions of design as being just too naturalistic. I thought YEC's
would lead the charge on that one. So why oh why have they latched onto
design, and why oh why is design said to be a YEC conspiracy? Could it
be a matter of hijacking? Thats purely a sociological or political

> To Mr. Schwarzwald and Jim: Museum of Modern Art! But of course! I
> failed to use the context; silly me.

Wasn't obvious to me, but I was too shy to ask. So thanks!

> --Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 12 22:23:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 22:23:49 EST