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

I definitely understand what you're saying Jack. Bottom line is there is no
really satisfying explanation. It's an aporia we have to live with at the
end of the day.

But.... I'd question the use of the word "mistakes" here. "Mistake" is a
value judgment. From the perspective of science, a transcription "error"
isn't really a "mistake"; it's just something that happened. "Mistake"
implies some intentionality -- I intended for A to happen but B happened
instead -- which isn't the domain of science. From the perspective of
theology, if we accept God's sovereignty over creation, we can't say a
transcription error, mutation, etc. is a "mistake."

And... I'd question whether all the consequences we worry about were
inevitable from the perspective of a free will theodicy. We can't claim
that there would have been no genetically-related diseases absent sin,
because we know the mechanisms that produce genetic abnormalities are part
of how creation works. But, we can suppose that if man had not rebelled
against God, the relationships people would have been able to enjoy with God
and with each other may have enabled us to manage the consequences of those
abnormalities without the suffering we now experience.

For example, my youngest son has a genetic abnormality that severly
diminshes his capacity for verbal language acquisition. Had man never
sinned, would we have the ability and technology to cure this abnormality?
If we think of all scientific and technological knowledge as part of God's
general revelation, that means God has only very slowly and progressively
revealed to us various life-saving and life-enhancing technologies, such as,
say, antibiotics. We are only beginning, after tens of thousands of years
of human history, to unlock the potential of biotechnology. Would all of
this and more have been revealed more immediately if man had not sinned at
the beginning? Does the Tree of Life in some ways signify the potential of
all the scientific and technological knowledge God knows? Does the flaming
sword that gaurds the entrance to Eden in some ways signify our lack of
immediate access to that knowledge?

Also, much of the suffering my son will experience as a result of his
language problems will be relational with his peers. He will have to
overcome suspicion, mocking, rejection, etc. because he "can't talk." If
people were not slaves to sin, this wouldn't happen. We would accept and
love people who are "different" just as they are.

So I wonder -- can we contextualize a free will theodicy for today by
focusing on the potentialities of revelation and relationship rather than by
focusing on changes in the physical creation?

On Feb 19, 2008 6:51 AM, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> 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 Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> *Cc:* Randy Isaac <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 <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 10:33:41 2008