Re: Dembski theodicy

George wrote:

> Dembski's view requires not only that God, foreseeing Adam's sin,
> allowed suffering and death in the world prior to the fall but that
> God created a world in which suffering and death, "natural evil,"
> is necessary - & that in several ways. The 2d law of
> thermodynamics means that there will be a tendency for machinery,
> including biological machinery, to run down. The physical nature
> of a planet like the earth means that there will be earthquakes,
> volcanoes, thunderstorms &c with some resulting loss of life. If
> organisms like insects were around for millions of years without
> ever dying then the earth would be awash in them. And if natural
> selection is an important component of the evolutionary process
> (even if not the only one) then death & extinction are part of the
> way in which new species, including humanity, developed.
>
> This means that the whole nature of the physical world would have
> been different if Adam had not sinned - or, to put it the other way
> around, the whole nature of the physical world is a result of sin.
> In that case it is very difficult to see how to make sense of the
> claim that God's creation is "very good" or of a verse like I Tim.4:4.

Yes, I agree. The most striking thing to me was that Dembski sees
not just human death and pain, but virtually all natural processes
(plate tectonics, atmospheric circulation dynamics, energy flow
through ecosystems, etc) as consequences of human sin. In this, his
views are indistinguishable with those of YECs. But such a
perspective is very difficult to reconcile with all of the rich
scripture that appeals to nature as reflecting God's glory and giving
praise to God (esp the Psalms and Job). Those passages include
descriptions of the cycle of death and renewal in creation, of
predators and prey. Virtually nothing of what we recognize as God's
good creation is excluded. (Note: I find the ICR use of spider webs,
or the bombadier beetle, as wonderful examples of God's creation
quite ironic.) As I stated in my original post, in this view an
unfallen universe would have to be completely static with no change,
no dynamic processes at all. There would be no death, but also no
birth and no new life.

This theodicy would seem to take the wonder, beauty and awesomeness
of creation and turn it into a view of a world wracked by the ravages
of human sin to such an extent that there is virtually nothing truly
good left. This view would also seem to make it difficult to support
a theology of creation care and stewardship. I do not think it is a
coincidence that much (but not all) of the anti-evolution Christian
community is also very anti-environmental.

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 17:30:55 2006