Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

But even a YEC theodicy has to answer the question, "if God knew man would
rebel, and that this rebellion would cause such suffering, why did he create
man at all?" So, in a sense, the YEC theodicy simply pushes the problem
back a little further.

One classical answer to this problem -- not limited to YECs -- is that God
created free beings because of love. In his love, God desires us to have
freedom; but freedom implies the ability to choose wrongly.

One can still ask, however, whether it would have been more consistent with
God's love not to create free beings whom he knew would choose wrongly.
Here there are a couple of possible responses. One is that it is better to
have some free beings who choose rightly than to have no free beings at
all. Another is that as God foreknew that free beings would make wrong
choices, he also planned from before the foundation of the world to empty
himself and suffer in the person of Christ. And this can be extended to
God's plan for the whole creation -- God participates in the suffering of
creation in Christ's death and ultimately transforms all of creation through
the power of Christ's resurrection, bringing about a greater good than if
God had not created at all.

I don't think this "kenotic" view of creation really "answers" the problem
of evil, but I don't think anyone seriously argues that any theodicy
provides ultimately satisfying answers, nor does scripture seem to suggest
that we are entitled to completely tidy solutions here (see Job).

On Feb 18, 2008 8:36 PM, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> I think there is a specific problem for TE's that others do not have.
> This is not to say that theodicy is not a problem yet to be solved
> elsewhere. But I think YEC certainly can explain away the problem of death
> by denying its existence before the fall, and attribute many of these issues
> directly to mankind's sin and its effect on creation. Dont get me wrong, I
> dont think they are correct, but I think they skirt the issue more
> easily.
>
> I am not sure about PC views exactly, but dont they see each species as a
> new creation? They would deny random mutation and selection. While
> they dont deny death before the fall, they could deny the existence of
> suffering as a consequence of creation, but TE requires it (because most
> mutations are harmful.) I have little doubt that God created living beings
> via evolution in the Darwinian sense. But, I have yet to hear a convincing
> TE explanation of this problem.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2008 4:21 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> I would rather think that we all have a big problem of theodicy which no
> one has fully resolved. Whether someone has a "bigger" or "lesser" problem,
> I don't know how to judge nor do I know if it matters. Are you implying that
> TE's have a "bigger problem" because they see divine guidance in all things
> and are therefore attributing disease, suffering and death directly to
> divine will? If so, wouldn't anyone else, ID or PC or whatever, have an
> equally "bigger problem" because they see divine intervention as something
> that occurs as needed to generate the organism that God willed into being?
> How would that lessen the problem of disease, suffering, and death? Does the
> perceived absence of such intervention absolve God of responsibility in
> those cases?
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* drsyme@cablespeed.com
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Rich Blinne<rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Randy Isaac' <randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2008 12:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> But many random mutations cause disease and suffering, or death. This imo
> is a bigger problem for TE than God's mechanism of action is.
>
>
>
> *On Mon Feb 18 11:50 , Rich Blinne sent:
>
> *
>
> i On Feb 18, 2008, at 7:36 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> You might also add: 3: is "neo-Darwinism" metaphysically random? It
> depends on how one defines the term.
>
> On Feb 17, 2008 9:05 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Thank you all for a lot of helpful comments.
> > Let me wrap up and summarize this thread.
> >
> > 1. Is the biological theory of evolution truly random? While there are
> > elements of randomness, boundary conditions and environmental factors
> > provide a great deal of direction. Simon Conway Morris has shown a lot of
> > evidence of convergence though the underlying factors for it are not yet
> > known.
> >
> > 2. Does the randomness of evolution mean that it is undirected?
> > Yes--from a natural viewpoint. This means we know of no physical mechanisms
> > that influence genetic variation on the basis of the needs or
> > characteristics of any subsequent organism. No--from a divine viewpoint.
> > This means that God's purposes in guiding evolution need not involve a
> > scientifically detectable influence on genetic variation.
> >
> > Randy
> >
>
>
> If you want more precision and avoid Gregory's deliberate (and I would
> suggest slanderous) mis-definition of terms, I would let the proponents
> define the term neo-Darwinism. Such a definition could goes something like
> this:
> The synthesis of population genetics with evolution as originally proposed
> by Darwin of descent with modification. Population genetics study allele
> frequencies under the influence of the four evolutionary forces of natural
> selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow.
>
> Note there is no explicit reference anywhere to random. Random is implied
> by genetic drift and mutation both of which has been observed many, many
> times outside of an evolutionary context, e.g. in the current HapMap
> project (www.hapmap.org). The concept of allele frequencies is also
> random. In classical Mendelian genetics the allele frequencies distribute
> randomly allowing the binomial theorem to be applied.
>
> Note that randomness, however defined, only comes from the genetics
> portion of the neo-Darwinist synthesis. I don't hear any creationist or ID
> proponent berating the (shudder) *materialist genetic worldview*. It
> cannot properly be called Darwinist because modern genetics post-dates
> Darwin. Both YEC and ID have conceded genetics at which point they have
> conceded the whole randomness question. It is also interesting to see what
> else Michael Behe has conceded:
>
> 1. Common Descent
> 2. Natural Selection
> 3. Random Mutation
>
> What he hasn't conceded is that the random mutation has enough reach
> either on the basis of not being able to produce irreducibly complex
> "machines" or having an insufficient rate with so-called double mutations (
> e.g. drug resistance in the Plasmodium parasite). Behe's analysis
> is fraught with problems that has been raised here, in PSCF, and elsewhere I
> will leave it to the reader as a Googling exercise to explore this further.
>
> At this point the question might be raised give all this randomness is
> this somehow inconsistent with design and by implication Christianity since
> Christianity rests on a Creator God? Consider the example of Ruby Red
> Grapefruit. In 1927, Hermann J. Muller found that ionizing radiation causes
> (shudder) random mutations. Since then chemical mutagens have been found.
>
> Botanists have taken advantage of the randomness to produce better crops
> by increasing the mutation rate through radiation. See here:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
>
> Pierre Lagoda pulled a small container from his pocket and spilled the
> contents onto his desk. Four tiny dice rolled to a stop.
>
> "That's what nature does," Dr. Lagoda said. The random results of the
> dice, he explained, illustrate how spontaneous mutations create the genetic
> diversity that drives evolution and selective breeding.
>
> He rolled the dice again. This time, he was mimicking what he and his
> colleagues have been doing quietly around the globe for more than a
> half-century — using radiation to scramble the genetic material in crops, a
> process that has produced valuable mutants like red grapefruit,
> disease-resistant cocoa and premium barley for Scotch whiskey.
>
> "I'm doing the same thing," he said, still toying with the dice. "I'm not
> doing anything different from what nature does. I'm not using anything that
> was not in the genetic material itself."
>
> Thus, we have neo-Darwinist evolution in action controlled by an
> intelligent designer. This should not be surprising since Darwin used this
> exact same analogy in Origin when defining natural selection. If a human
> breeder is compatible with all this "randomness", then certainly the Lord of
> Heaven and Earth is.
>
> Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 22:01:02 2008