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

That's fine, but then why bother with the whole "there is evil in the world
b/c Satan rebelled explanation?" Your bottom line is just "because God can
allow whatever he wants." But that isn't a theodicy because a theodicy is
by definition a "defense" of God.

BTW, Satan's rebellion as an ultimate explanation for evil tends to be tied
to open theism, ala Greg Boyd, because the notion there is that God
*didn't*know Satan was going to rebel.

On Feb 18, 2008 11:25 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 <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 Tue Feb 19 00:04:30 2008