George,
I think you bring up several important and valid points in your paper
including the distinction between original sin and original righteousness,
the non-historical treatment of Adam and the possible accomodationist
treatment of him by Paul, but I think one important issue you overlook in
your paper and in this thread is the distinction between sin and evil.
While original sin may not be what we traditionally assume it to be it is
hard to imagine any reading of the NT that doesn't affirm the very real
presence of evil in our everyday lives, from daily praying to be delivered
from it to the casting out of demons being one of the signs following us as
believers. It is this preexistent evil that justifies the theodicy of the
fall of Satan.
I disagree that invoking Satan doesn't solve the theodicy problem and in
fact I contend the opposite, that minimizing Satan and the presence of evil
not only makes the theodicy problem worse, but is imprudent and potentially
leads to heresy. I think the presence of Satan and evil and the spiritual
warfare we are in is a preeminent theme of the teachings of Jesus and all
the NT.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:51 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
1st, let me remind you why the concept of Satan was brought into the
discussion here - to provide a solution of the theodicy problem. & it just
doesn't. If Satan is held to be God's creation then it just pushes the
problem back a step. If Satan isn't heald to be a creature but a
self-existent being then the position is clearly heretical. So I see no
point in discussing this aspect of the matter further.
Yes, the Bible speaks of Satan - in way way that clearly shows the
development of the concept in the OT. (In Job & Zechariah, e.g., "the
Satan" is God's overzealous prosecuting attorney & is not in rebellion
against God.) Passages that allude to a premundane fall of angels are
fragmentary at best (especially when we bypass texts in Is.14 & Ez.28 which
represent demythologizing by the biblical writers themselves). & the idea
that the serpent in the garden was such a fallen angel isn't actually found
until Rev.12, & even there allusively. So not too much should be built on
this as far as serious theology is concerned.
My own suggestion for understanding the origin and consequences of human
sinfulness is at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf .
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
There must be a notion of evil for otherwise not much of human behavior
makes sense. I do not believe science can provide any solution to why we
characterize that sort of human behavior as evil since terms like sin or
evil make no scientific sense. The only solution possible for Christians is
to go to Scripture and find possible solutions. There are verses in
Scripture that are interpreted as the actual existence of Satan and his fall
owing to pride. Similarly, there are early verses in Genesis indicating the
disobedience of man that resulted in changes in man that we actually could
not neither understand nor fathom. I actually think one is dealing with
historical questions and Scripture is perhaps the sole source for possible
answers. I am sure there are all sorts of differing biblical interpretations
and I suppose there must the issue rest.
Moorad
________________________________
From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Tue 2/19/2008 3:06 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
Moorad -
You state that as a rhetorical question but whether or not what you say is
correct is at issue. 1st, is the present state of humanity a result of an
abrupt "fall" from an original state of perfection? 2d, is Satan a fallen
angel? 3d, if the answer to 2 is "Yes," is that fallen angel responsible
(at least in part) for the human condition? & 4th, to return to the
theodicy question that prompted this spin-off from the Neo-Darwinism thread,
does the concept of the fall of Satan really help to "justify God" with
regard to the problems of evil and suffering?
I agree with some others - & the Forde quote I posted yesterday is along
this line - that theodicy is a rather presumptuous enterprise which should
be undertaken only with caution & humility. But if we are going to embark
on it we should be willing to call wrong or superficial "solutions" wrong or
superficial.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
Is not the present state of humanity the consequence of two falls, that of
Satan followed by that of Man?
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 10:40 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
Which implies either
a) God inflicts suffering on the world as part of the judgment on Satan,
perhaps through the instrumentality of Satan, or
b) Satan is the ultimate source of the suffering in the world which,
because of the pervasiveness of that suffering, means that Satan is the
effecctive creator
of the world.
In case a), the introduction of Satan does nothing to solve the real
problem. b) is heretical (Manichaean) or at least tantamount to heresy.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Walley <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'David Opderbeck' <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; 'Jack'
<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: 'Randy Isaac' <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:10 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
In my layman's opinion, the simplest and easiest and most obvious theodicy
is acknowledging the fall of Satan before the creation of the physical
universe for the purpose of a cosmic quest of trial and judgment on Satan
and therefore a creation tainted with the presence of evil and suffering of
man and animals.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:00 PM
To: Jack
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 20 13:22:47 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 20 2008 - 13:22:48 EST