Re: [asa] AIG argues (again) for design

FWIW, David Snoke's "Why were Dangerous Animals Created?" in the June 2004 PSCF, available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf, deals with this issue from what seems to be an OEC perspective. I'm not especially impressed by it because the only alternatives to his view that snoke considers are YEC & that of "the atheistic Darwinist," with no attention to TE. But it may be about the best one can do from such a limited sdtandpoint.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Ted Davis
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; burgytwo@juno.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] AIG argues (again) for design

    Ted comments:
    This is very interesting for what it does not say, more than for what it
    does say. Did God "design" the millipede to kill other organisms--and even
    to give pain to sentient beings such as the larger animals that won't eat
    it?If so, what about the old conundrum about no animal death and suffering
    (they go hand in hand) prior to the fall of Adam? Did God "retool" this
    creature after a certain fruit was consumed, so that it then could deliver
    pain to larger animals and death to its fellow insects?

  These were my thoughts precisely. YEC-ers put a lot of emphasis on "the curse". God, it seems came up with some truly horrible ideas when He put the curse on the whole of creation. I know one can't question the morality of God (though Richard Dawkins clearly does in the quote I posted earlier). However, I kind of find this "retooling" idea particularly hard to stomach.

  Iain
   

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 3 12:16:06 2006