Genomic defects and gnomic arguments

A recent book claims to have found a 'new' argument to disprove the idea of intelligent design. The author seems to be ill informed to say the least.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Are your body’s imperfections reasons for you to reject intelligent design and embrace evolution? Professor John Avise (UC Irvine) thinks so. His new book Inside the Human Genome was given good press by PhysOrg: “Distinguished Professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UC Irvine, Avise also makes the case that overwhelming scientific evidence of genomic defects provides a compelling counterargument to intelligent design,” the article said. [1.]

- Really? Does anyone believe you could create a world thousands of years ago and then not have it suffer genetic damage? In no way does a perfect creation mean there's a perfect creation now. No creationist (I repeat, no one) thinks this is the case; but yet evolutionists keep coughing up this hair ball argument. Is our professor so ignorant he doesn't realize this? Has he read no creationist material whatsover? Is he lazy? just contemptuous? what's his excuse?

Not only that; the bible specifically (on numerous occasions) refers the Fall and to the corruption incumbent upon the fall. (eg. "The whole world groaneth in travail...'') So what's his excuse? If he's read the bible he knows better. If he's even remotely familiar with creationist literature he knows better. Is he merely trying to deceive ignorant people? You tell me. (If the publisher had given the book to a c. to read they could have easily told him all this.) This objection has been answered so many times over the last few decades that one wonders why it would have to be addressed again. The answers are cogent and to the point. This 'argument' is a bad one, and has no weight.)

B. 'The article said that evolutionary theory provides religious people a way out of theodicy – the need to explain natural evil. Avise said that while both theology and natural selection can explain the appearance of design, theology has trouble explaining design flaws.'

- Completely false as I've pointed out.
- I'd say it's evolutionary theory that has the problems with design flaws; as evolution is somehow supposed to be progressing, building marvellous organs out of thin air as it were. Biblical creation shows a descent from perfection to imperfection; while the evolution theory offered to us by Materialism gives us an ascent from imperfection (i.e. inert matter) to perfect (i.e. sophisticated genetic code) The professor (led astray by his monistic worldview) has got the thing back to front. He's trying to project his own problems onto the creation model.

C. “Serious biological imperfections, on the other hand, can only logically be expected of nonsentient evolutionary processes that are inherently sloppy and error-prone,” Avise claimed.

- I always find this comical. Here we have an evolutionist admitting that e. processes are 'inherently sloppy and error-prone' and yet they somehow (blindly, randomly, without foresight) managed to cobble together an Albert Einstein! That makes no sense to me. (Try writing a soft ware program with such a process :=)

I'm afraid I can't follow the 'logic' of life coming from non-life; of intelligence coming from non-intelligence; of the personal coming from the non-personal; of intelligent code coming from non-intelligent matter. If there's a logic to that story I don't see it.
- Apparently this man has never heard of genetic mutations, of genetic entropy.

D. “They’re [imperfections] more troublesome to rationalize as overt mistakes by a fallible God.”

- This is the kind of statement Charles Darwin liked to make. (i.e. attributing 'natural evil' to God.) One might ask him how he knows what a 'mistake' is (in terms of a blind, non-teleological process) and how he knows the mistakes he sees (or thinks he sees) were the acts of God? (Attributing 'mistakes' to God isn't scientific of course, it's theological.) We await his answer.

E. 'He extended Dobzhansky’s oft-quoted proverb that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” to suggest that nothing in religion, medicine or environmental issues makes sense except in evolution’s light either.

- Evolution's light eh? One wonders how much 'light' a non-intelligent, non-personal, blind, random, wasteful, violence ridden process can provide. Evolution's shadow is more like it; a shadow unto death.

Summary;
As the gnomes of legend protect mines and mineral lodes, so the materialist must protect the theory of evolution. One of the most successful methods has been to impugn the creation, and to blame its 'imperfections' on God. Avise is just the latest in a long line of those trying to guard the Darwinian treasure.

Notes;
1. Is Your Bod Flawed by God? Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/14/2010
2. I've mentioned the books 'Darwin's god' and 'Darwin's proof' by Cornelius Hunter before, but they're pertinent here as they address these issues. (Maybe the professor could pick up a copy and try reading it. Would that be too much to ask?)
3. I find it comical to have a materialist offer poor Christians a theodicy. A theodicy by someone who doesn't believe in god? A theodicy if there is no god? what's that all about. I don't think the church needs that kind of help. (I don't even think the liberals need that kind of help, as they've been offering up this kind of junk for a couple centuries or more now.)
- I don't know the guy, but I'm assuming he's a materialist.
4. Avise is the guy who needs to give us an explanation of evil. He should mind his own knitting and give us his own account of evil. He might tell us how, if all is mere matter in motion, such a thing as evil exists. Isn't he just borrowing a theistic concept here? What right does a materialist have to talk about evil; let alone complain about it? (I maintain that it's the materialist that has the biggest problem with evil. He can't even give us an explanation of how it could exist on materialist terms. He might tell us how to define it as well, and what to do about it... this phantasm that doesn't exist.)
- If he does think evil exists (and he seems to) then this ought to tell him that his worldview is false.