Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller
From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Integrated Circuits. Part II.
Message-ID: <32500020@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 16:37:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500020
Posted: Fri Jan 25 16:37:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 07:05:17 EST
References: <658@uwmacc.UUCP>
Lines: 83
Nf-ID: #R:uwmacc:-65800:uiucdcsb:32500020:000:4499
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller    Jan 25 15:37:00 1985

Since SOR #5 is still not completed (to be followed by my replies to your
reviews) I thought I'd jump in briefly on a discussion between Bill & Paul.
Bill Jefferys writes:

>Were these genes [hereditary diseases] part of our original gene pool?

As I have often stated, the premise is that all organisms were created in
perfect organization & were functionally complete.  Any change from that state
then, would of necessity be a downward change.  Mutations should be harmful,
not helpful.  Hereditary diseases are a result of genetic damage we have
accumulated since said changes began.  They were not originally created in
the gene pools.  This is one of the consequences of deviating from the initial
condition in which we were created.  In fact, the further we move from that
time, the more we should expect to see such problems crop up, e.g., shortly
after the "fall" from our initial state, it would be possible for a brother &
sister to marry, whereas under current circumstances it creates a rather
dangerous situation.

>After all, Creationists claim that production of new genetic variations is not
>part of God's plan.

Any mutation can be said to be a "production of new genetic variations".  The
question up for debate is whether or not those random variations are sufficient
to produce the complex life forms we see around us.  Bill is far from demon-
strating that.

>There is another problem.  The gene for sickle cell anemia confers a
>survival advantage on its heterozygous carriers.  If it wasn't in the
>original gene pool, then this would be an example of the evolutionary 
>synthesis of a new, useful gene, which Creationists are always claiming to be
>highly improbable.  On the other hand, if the gene had always been there, 
>an example of God's beneficence to Mankind, then  one may ask why He 
>made this particular design choice.  Remember, the individuals who are 
>homozygous for sickle cell live a short life full of not inconsiderable pain 
>and suffering.

This demonstrates the poverty of the evolutionists' positions when they have to
use sickle cell anemia as an example of a helpful mutation.  Helpful?  Then
perhaps everyone should have it?  In fact, sickle cell anemia represents a
harmful mutation, as Bill conceeds when he describes the short & painful life
of homozygous individuals.  Why are we doing research into the thing if it's
such a great thing to have in fighting malaria?  Hey, let's spread it around a
little more ...

>Which, of course, brings up the question of why there is evil in the
>world.

This is a theological question.  Evil implies morality.  Since Bill claims the
bottom line of everything, ultimately, is physics, is there then any such thing
as evil?  Do self replicating chemical reactions (life) have such things as
purpose/morals/evil/good?  Does the chemical reaction in a burning candle have
those things?  No?  Why then should other chemical reactions have them?  After
all, it's simply a matter of complexity, not substance.

>This is a question that Creationists seldom face up to.

Wrong.  It's been discussed.  Perhaps you seldom read the published literature?

>What is the *scientific* explanation for the existence of disease organisms,
>according to "Scientific Creationism"?  No fair using religious arguments.
>To do so defeats your purpose of showing that Creationism is scientific.

The ultimate root cause is that it is a direct consequence of our fall from our
initial condition in which we were created.  I expect most of the diseases are
a mutation which proved to be quite harmful to us, directly or indirectly.
This ties in with my comments about hereditary diseases, above.  Here, however,
I must cry foul.  You ask a theological question (what is the purpose behind
evil & diseases) & then restrict answers to nontheological territory.  Dubious
debate tactics to be sure, but I hope I have nevertheless provided a satisfac-
tory answer given those restrictions.

>No appealing to "the wisdom of the Creator, which we are unable to fathom".

Over & over & over & over evolutionists charge that creationists use this
quote.  They have, of course, never demonstrated any of the serious creation-
ists on the net using it as an explanation for anything.  Despite repeated
corrections, the straw man is dusted off & used again.  I must conclude, there-
fore, that some evolutionists deliberately distort our position, at least some
of the time, and therefore are not at all honest.

A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois