Re: i am new

Stephen Jones (
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:43:46 +0800


On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Steven Warren Blake wrote:

SW>I am new to this topic of creation. I want to learn more, but it
>seems terribly complicated. Can you point me in a direction to learn
>the basics about some of the more common theories?

Welcome to the Reflector. I would suggest Phillip E. Johnson's book,
"Darwin on Trial" (Intervarsity Press) as a good overview of the
Creation/Evolution controversy.

SW>I am not sure that I agree with your views but I am impressed with
>the way they are thought out. The logic seems mostly solid.

If you are talking about Glenn Morton's logic, then some of us would
have to disagree with you about it being "solid". For example, Glenn's 5.5
million-year Adam/Noah and Mediterrranean Flood theory has no "solid"
evidence for it in either science or the Bible.

SW>I am curious to know: how sure is science about the pseudogene
>not having a purpose? It seems like things in the past which have no purpose
>have been found to have a use afterall.

Science can only know that a pseudogene is not functioning accordingto its
presumed original function as a gene, ie. to code for a specific protein. That the
gene is not coding for that protein does not mean that it has no purpose. A switch
that once was on but now is off, may has a higher purpose in being off!

For example, in the case of the vitamin C pseudogene, all primates (including man)
cannot synthesise vitamin C, unlike almost all other non-primate mammals which can.
But God's pupose may have been that He wanted man not to be able to synthesise
vitamin C, so that he would develop agriculture, and from that a culture. So God
may have caused (or allowed) the vitamin C gene to mutate into a pseudogene in
the ancestral primate population from which came man. In such a case it would be
another example of "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom" (1Cor 1:25).


SW>You say that a dead body is dust. "Then why does God call the living Adam
>'dust'?" By your own logic this cannot mean that a dust is a dead body.

The point here is that man's body is composed of the ordinary elements
of nature found in the ground, and when man dies his body disintegrates
back into those elements.


Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone 08 9448 7439 (home)
Perth, West Australia v 08 9222 4025 (work)