Re: [asa] Theodicy continued

I am in the process of reading Keith Ward's book "Divine Action:
Examining God's Role in an Open and Emerging Universe'' -- in fact I am
reviewing it for PSCF -- the book was originally published in 1990 but
has now been republished --with a new preface -- by the Templeton
Foundation Press (2007). A sample quotation (p. 67):
"Plantinga's suggestion that Satan causes natural evil seems to me most
implausible (Plantinga ["God, Freedom and Evil"]1977: 58) for suffering
is involved in the whole course of the evolution of life, from the
preying of one fish on another to the development of cancer cells in
the body. Though some prophets have thought that lions might lie down
with lambs, that would involve a great change in their digestive
systems. And I cannot think that fallen angels changed the digestive
systems of dinosaurs long before the first human being existed. Nor is
it quite convincing to be told that one is free to choose between good
and evil; for what is the point of such a choice, and why is it so
important as to justify a world of immense suffering? Perhaps one would
rather not be free under those conditions. In view of those problems, I
have sought to put a great deal of emphasis on the necessities inherent
in the Divine nature. ....."
Don

Jon Tandy wrote:
> 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 16:22:57 2008