Fw: [asa] Theodicy continued

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Theodicy continued

> Now let's put this to the test.
>
> Can anyone devise a way in which Satanic involvement in suffering can be
> scientifically detected? Or how we can distinguish between those things
> which are good and God-given and those which stem from Satan?
>
> What about frost and ice?
>
> We are having excellent frost now and I went up the Lakes mountains
> yesterday. One path was covered in ice and a chap kept falling over? Who
> made the ice? God or?
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: <tandyland@earthlink.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:21 PM
> Subject: 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.
>>
>>
>

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 18:05:28 2008