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

But you still have to answer the question, "if God knew Satan would rebel
and that the whole creation including free human beings would suffer as a
result, why did he create Satan?" It just pushes the question back a little
further. And it raises questions about whether humans really have free
will.

On Feb 18, 2008 10:58 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't agree that B is a logical deduction at all but I do agree it is
> heretical.
>
> For A, why does "God inflicts suffering on the world as part of the
> judgment on Satan" not solve the problem? This implies that if God so
> chooses to do so, then it is a problem which I contend is just as
> presumptuous as the YEC theodicy.
>
> On the contrary I think the scriptures are replete with evidences that God
> does choose to spend the lives and deaths of His people in this manner as he
> sees fit.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2008 10:40 PM
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> Which implies either
>
> a) God inflicts suffering on the world as part of the judgment on Satan,
> perhaps through the instrumentality of Satan, or
>
> b) Satan is the ultimate source of the suffering in the world which,
> because of the pervasiveness of that suffering, means that Satan is the
> effecctive creator
> of the world.
>
> In case a), the introduction of Satan does nothing to solve the real
> problem. b) is heretical (Manichaean) or at least tantamount to heresy.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> *To:* 'David Opderbeck' <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; 'Jack'<drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> *Cc:* 'Randy Isaac' <randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2008 10:10 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> In my layman's opinion, the simplest and easiest and most obvious theodicy
> is acknowledging the fall of Satan before the creation of the physical
> universe for the purpose of a cosmic quest of trial and judgment on Satan
> and therefore a creation tainted with the presence of evil and suffering of
> man and animals.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Monday, February 18, 2008 10:00 PM
> *To:* Jack
> *Cc:* Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* 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 23:10:00 2008