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

No I disagree with this. I do not feel compelled to have to answer that
question. That again assumes that God owes us an suffering-free existence or
worst case at least an explanation as to why. And I reject both of those and
I think doing so is not only consistent with scripture, but the best and
most reasonable theodicy we could ever have.
 
As far as why did He create Satan, I don't feel that we can really know that
or that it matters to us anyway but I choose to believe that for whatever
reason He did so, it was His prerogative and not subject to our approval or
second guessing.
 
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 11:09 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'David Opderbeck' <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; 'Jack'
<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: 'Randy Isaac' <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Rich Blinne
<mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Randy <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> Isaac' ; 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 <http://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 23:26:59 2008