Re: Dembski theodicy

David,
I think you're ignoring the implicit definition of "natural evil." It's
anything that "I" don't like. But the Great Red Spot and the newer one
developing on Jupiter doesn't affect me either positively or negatively.
So it can't be either an evil or a good.

Keith mentioned that without sickness and death we would have to have a
static universe. If I recall the information, someone calculated that, if
all the descendants of one pair of flies lived and reproduced, beginning
in early spring and continuing to the fall freeze, the entire surface of
the earth would be 8 feet deep in flies.

Sometimes these natural evils put us in a double bind. The death of a
child is a tragedy, so there is a concerted effort to prevent the death
of the young in Africa from AIDS, malaria and other endemic problems. If
my memory serves, the number of deaths annually is 500,000. However,
there are also famines in various parts of Africa already, and the
reports indicate that global warming will consistently reduce rainfall in
many areas, exacerbating the lack of food production. Coupling reduced
food production with a larger population because of fewer childhood
deaths produces a greater problem. I don't think many have considered
this interaction, for which there is no acceptable quick fix.
Dave

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:03:08 -0500 "David Campbell"
<pleuronaia@gmail.com> writes:
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.

-- 
Is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter a consequence of human sin?  It's a
hurricane-like storm a few times the size of earth.  Likewise, it's hard
to find much that's evil about all the earthquakes that require a
seismometer for anyone to know that they happened.  I don't deny that
"natural evil" is a difficult issue that needs addressed, but the
categorical assigning of such natural processes to evil is dubious. 
I also see a significant problem in the claim that it is _the_
traditional and orthodox Christian position instead of _a_  traditional
and orthodox position.  Of course, Dembski may have been more nuanced
than Keith's summary, but as the Bible doesn't especially discuss natural
evil in a manner suited to provide precise Western philosophical answers,
claiming that one specific position is the Christian view seems
ill-founded.  
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"