Dembski theodicy

I just ran across an article by Dembski on natural evil. I found it
interesting because I am convinced that the problem of natural evil
is one of the primary issues that drives the anti-evolution movement
-- whether YEC or ID.

The article is entitled "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and
Modern Science" and can be found at <http://www.designinference.com/
documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf>.

I will just make a couple comments.

First Dembski argues from the position that all perceived "natural
evil" including not only animal death but natural processes such as
earthquakes and hurricanes are a consequence of human sin. He
further states that this is the traditional and orthodox Christian
position. He commends YECs for holding to what he sees as a
fundamental theological position.

He states -- " Except for preserving the face-value interpretation of
certain Old
Testament passages (like Psalm 93), nothing much seems to have been
riding theologically on preserving geocentrism as a proper
interpretation
of Scripture. The same cannot be said for a young earth. A young earth
seems to be required to maintain a traditional understanding of the
Fall.
And yet a young earth clashes sharply with mainstream science.
Christians
therefore seem to be in a position of having to choose their poison.
They
can go with a young earth, thereby maintaining theological orthodoxy but
committing scientific heresy; or they can go with an old earth, thereby
committing theological heresy but maintaining scientific orthodoxy."

This view of "natural evil" would in effect require a non-fallen
world to be completely static. Natural processes such as earthquakes
and storms are consequences of a dynamic Earth. They result from
processes as simple as heat transfer. These dynamic processes are
also necessary for the existence and preservation of life. Any
natural process generates some potential risk. If the wind blows, it
may fell a tree, and that tree may fall on someone.

He later states -- "This view of God's redemption in Christ is basic
Christian theology. I
regard it as not only true but also mandatory for sound Christian faith.
Nonetheless, it presupposes that all evil in the world ultimately
traces back
to human sin. For this view of redemption to be plausible within our
current noetic environment therefore requires an explanation of how
natural evil could precede the first human sin and yet result from it."

I would take issue with his claim that his view of natural evil
corresponds to the orthodox one. I will let the more theologically
trained among us respond.

Dembski's solution -- He argues that God, knowing of the Fall, acted
"preemptively" so that the effects of the Fall preceded the
disobedience of Adam and Eve.

"God's immediate response to the Fall is therefore not to create anew
but to control the damage. In the Fall, humans rebelled against God and
thereby invited evil into the world. The challenge God faces in
controlling
the damage resulting from this original sin is how to make humans
realize
the full extent of their sin so that, in the fullness of time, they
can fully
embrace the redemption in Christ and thus experience full release from
sin. For this reason, God does not merely allow personal evils (the
disordering of our souls and the sins we commit as a consequence) to run
their course subsequent to the Fall. In addition, God also brings about
natural evils (e.g., death, predation, parasitism, disease, drought,
famines,
earthquakes, and hurricanes), letting them run their course prior to the
Fall. Thus, God himself disorders the creation, making it defective on
purpose. God disorders the world not merely as a matter of justice (to
bring judgment against human sin as required by GodÕs holiness) but even
more significantly as a matter of redemption (to bring humanity to its
senses by making us realize the gravity of sin)."

He latter argues that the Garden was formed to isolate Adam and Eve
from this fallen world until they disobeyed.

Dembski then states how he thinks this affects human origins.

"A final question now remains: How did the first humans gain entry to
the Garden? There are two basic options: progressive creation and
evolving creation. In the first, God creates the first humans in the
Garden. In the second, the first humans evolve from primate ancestors
outside the Garden and then are brought into the Garden. Both views
require direct divine action. In the former, God specially creates
the first
humans from scratch. In the latter, God introduces existing human-like
beings from outside the Garden but then transforms their
consciousness so
that they become rational moral agents made in God's image. With an
evolving creation, this transformation of consciousness by God on entry
into the Garden is essential to the kairological reading of Genesis.
For if
the first humans bore the full image and likeness of God outside the
Garden prior to the Fall, they would have been exposed to the evils
present
there -- evils for which they were not yet responsible. This would be
problematic since humanity's responsibility and culpability in the Fall
depends on the Fall occurring without undue temptations or pressures.
These temptations and pressures are absent in the Garden but not
outside."

So it seems that the problem of natural evil is a significant factor
in how Demski understands creative history.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Wed May 10 00:34:02 2006