Re: [asa] Theodicy continued

I am quoting David O from the Neo-Darwinism thread here:

"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. "

I like that idea, and had not thought of it before. I would suggest that
this idea should extend to all of creation. Our fallen nature is not the
cause of "natural evil", but our fallen nature has led us to be imperfect
stewards, and the result is the groaning and suffering of all of creation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:21 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 19:20:29 2008