We're of course talking about two different kinds of suffering. The first
is the suffering caused by evil, which I think in many ways can be
attributed to Satan as well as to our own conscious choices to depart from
God's way. The other is the suffering caused by random mutations, death,
etc., which are part of the natural process of life, and the evolutionary
history of life. I couldn't understand George's second point until
considering this latter process. If creation came about through suffering
(which still continues on in human suffering through genetic aberrations,
etc.), then attributing all suffering to Satan would make him the creator.
Allowing he is only responsible for the former doesn't answer the whole
theodicy question, which is "why did God design a system where there is so
much death and disease?"
Let's say I'm a creator. I'm going to make a new electronic gadget for fun
and profit, for my own enjoyment in terms of the development, usage, and
financial benefit to myself.. Anything I could possibly make would be
subject to decay (the batteries will eventually run down, the Flash memory
chip will eventually exceed its maximum number of writes, the sun will fade
the paint if left outside, etc.), damage (electric shock can damage the LCD
and circuitry, water will cause it to short out and destroy, normal use will
eventually lead to it being dropped and broken, the buttons will wear out
after being pressed so many times, and generally it will have a limited life
span), and disuse (people who buy it will enjoy it for a time and then they
will want a new model or better software).
What am I to do? I'll go ahead and create anyway, knowing that the initial
creation isn't the end of the work but only the beginning of an enjoyable
process (assuming I have the ability and the interest to carry it out in the
first place.) It doesn't bother me that my creation is subject to decay,
because I still want to enjoy the results. I can continue creating to my
heart's content, limited only by my resources and my interest. Why should I
try to make the thing indestructible and irresistable, and what are the
consequences in time to market and practical limitations? I could put it
inside a larger structure to shield it from the sun's rays, damaging
lightning spikes, scrapes, dropping from any height (lots and LOTS of foam),
but then the practical considerations would outweigh the functionality --
that is, no one would be able to use it because it would be buried in too
much peripheral stuff. And how am I going to protect the peripheral stuff
from damage on the outside, which decay will eventually work its way toward
my cherished circuit board? It's a never-ending process -- I have to
protect the peripheral stuff with more peripheral stuff.
So the only (and of course very significant) difference between us and God
is that God had (maybe?) the ability to create the laws of the environment
in the first place. Theoretically, he shouldn't be limited to creating
within an environment subject to those forces of decay. Why didn't he
choose to create the laws of the environment so that no decay, damage, or
disinterest would ever occur? My question is, WHY SHOULD HE? Can anyone
answer why God should create a world with laws like that, if it didn't
please Him to do so? And who is to say that there aren't fundamental laws
that even transcend this present universe, which would make such a creation
impractical, so that God himself wouldn't choose to violate them? (On a
smaller scale, it's like asking the question of a YEC, what would happen if
billions of generations of animal reproduction in the Garden of Eden weren't
balanced by the presence of death? God could have chosen to deal with this,
absent of Adam's sin, by creating clever ways to allow an infinite number of
animals to inhabit the same space on a finite planet, but why should He, and
what purpose would it serve Him?)
So I guess my answer to the theodicy question is, that's what God did, deal
with it. Realize that God didn't intend Universe 1.0 to be the final
product, but rather He is pointing us to a new heavens and a new earth that
is not mortal. And, He is in the business of creating more universes at His
will and pleasure. Our response to our circumstances in this life is part
of what it means to develop our character, so that our souls will be
suitable to inhabit nice places in the next life. Animal suffering is
really of no consequence, because that is just life for them, and then they
die. We have the opportunity to grow through those things and have a hope
of something better. Isn't it enough to say that God made this existence
finite, which requires death or decay at some point, so that He might point
us toward something that comes "after"? If this life weren't finite, there
would be no "after".
Jon Tandy
<http://www.arcom.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:51 AM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
But I am not talking about mans choice here. No one chooses to be afflicted
with a chromosomal deletion. Things happen to people that you cant, in any
reasonable way, attribute to man's sin. God's chosen method of creation
depends upon mistakes; mistakes in transcription, spontaneous mutations,
gene rearrangements etc.
there are mechanisms in the genome to promote diversity, but sometimes these
mechanism go awry and create an abomination. These mechanisms have been
present since the conception of life. It is not tainted as a result of the
fall of Man, or even judgment on Satan. That is why I see this as a unique
problem for TE, invoking Satan, God's judgment, the fall of Man, doesn't
work.
I think that the mechanisms in nature, that of evolution, is "good", and
the presence of these mistakes is not evil, but providential. But, that is
based on belief in God's word alone.
You see, I am fighting two fronts here. I am fighting against YEC members
of my church who cant accept evolution in part because of these problems.
And I am also having trouble explaining why God does things in this way to
non-believers that accept evolution but cant conceive of an omnipotent God
who would create in such a way. We need something more than just saying
"because the Bible says so."
----- Original Message -----
From: David <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> Opderbeck
To: Jack <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:59 PM
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 Isaac' <mailto: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 <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 Tue Feb 19 08:16:09 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 19 2008 - 08:16:09 EST