Hi,
I'm not meaning to leave the subject Bernie has raised about suffering
because I think its very important. But I wanted to comment on the
following:
[quote]
(Though, in response to David Clounch, I have no problem seeing destiny and
purpose in a world where evolution is true. I don't think TEs are
particularly hobbled on the question just by nature of their accepting
evolution. If anything they're hobbled because they simply, for whatever
reason, tend to avoid thinking and speaking in those terms - but that's not
a result of their believing in evolution, unless it's of evolution that was
ultimately/entirely unplanned and unguided, which seems very rare.)
[unquote]
I think I understand what you are saying. I suspect there are a spectrum
of beliefs inside the TE persuasion. I try to not ever say anything or make
any statements about TE because I prefer for the proponents of TE to
explain it.
I also need to read Polkinghorne before forming an opinion.
But I must be very naive and simple minded. Let me convey my
interpretation. Pre-loading means to me that all the information was put
there at the beginning, and once the ball was put in motion then we are the
result.
And we were intended. Nature was built to produce you and me. Wow, that
is the ultimate anthropic principle, is it not? I have difficulty with with
this concept. So pre-loading means it was planned and isn't really
unguided, but the guiding was coded into the universe and is a natural part
of the universe. I could buy into that.
And i could buy into an evolution that correlates with it.
But there are issues with it. For one, it seems too deterministic. It
doesn't fit with what we know about the universe. I believe in a
non-deterministic universe where destiny is forseen, and intended, but is
not likely to succeed without tinkering.
So I cannot be a deist in this sense.
So preloading seems to me to be a better theory if it proposed the goal was
merely a human race, but did not include a pre-planning of detailed
individuals. This would be more believable. It would fit with Stephen M
Barr's description of types of symmetry, where what atheists see as chaos
is only available because of a higher ordering, and humans are a local
maxima of order. The problem with this type of generic pre-loading is it
doesn't reconcile with the claims of scripture. So I cannot buy into an
evolution that is in this flavor.
One key is what you said about "ultimately/entirely unplanned and
unguided".
The theory, seems to me, is essentially "planned for and guided through the
mechanism". That is quite a claim. And how does one say that supports
planning and guiding but guiding through the mechanism refutes PZ Meyers?
Also, what is needed from a viable theory is a universe where individuals,
and their future destiny, was forseen and planned for, and if evolution is
the means by which this happens then it needs to be explained how the
individual's future is explained. I do not feel I have seen this
explanation. I am oncerned with how the theory predicted the destiny of
Jesus Christ and His resurrection. And our individual resurrections. The
pieces don't fit together for me here.
In the middle of this we have folks on this list saying that Cameron is
wrong, we don't need to even consider mechanism. Excuse me, but "guided
through the mechanism" is a robust claim, and we cannot really believe it if
we just ignore it.
We have to figure out whether the TE's are right about the mechanism or if
PZ Meyers is right about the mechanism.
I dont understand how God can hear and answer prayers and change our destiny
without guiding proximate causes. A claim that he doesn't guide proximate
causes is another tall order, (just as tall as "He did all guiding via an
ultimate guidance pre-programmed into nature". Maybe more so). To me, to
say that God doesnt tinker is the equivalent to a claim that he doesnt guide
via proximate causes. And I dont understand how this could possibly square
with a Bible that is chock full of God guiding by proximate causes unless PZ
and Shermer are correct, that the entire Bible is just a bunch of untrue
stories.
Sorry to be so difficult.
-Dave
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
> So if a child dies in an impoverished country because of diarrhea or
> starvation, yet a similar child lives in the USA because of better living
> standards, you are saying both happened because of God's plan for their
> lives? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint.
>
> ...Bernie
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:58 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> Heya Bernie,
>
> As I said, I disagree sharply that "if they live to be only 1 day old, they
> can do nothing for God". First, because even at 1 day old - even at 1
> pick-your-measure old - they're already doing something. They exist. They
> are now taking part in quite a plan, themselves, by virtue of their
> existence. And the effects that existence can have on the lives of others,
> and what that can bring about (lessons, experiences, etc) are numerous. And
> I wouldn't put this as "doing something for God" - only because God, to my
> understanding, doesn't "need" anything done for Him.
>
> Either way, the difference we seem to have is that you seem to see
> "purpose" as something that can only be thought of in terms of "growing up,
> then going out and doing things". Tremendously valuable, absolutely. But not
> exhaustive of value or purpose by a longshot. So from my perspective, what
> seems ridiculous is people viewing those who die early (even extremely
> early) or who are born with birth defects as having no purpose or value. I
> think the value is obvious. The purpose? As I said, quite a lot of reasons
> and possibilities can be offered, but I won't pretend I can read God's mind.
> A reason/purpose for a death/pain in situation X may differ drastically for
> a death/pain in situation Y, even though the deaths were very similar in
> generalities.
>
> As for "ancient theology", my view and understanding of it doesn't match
> yours - and I don't think anything essential/tremendous has changed besides.
> Nor do I think doctors ministering to the sick are "revolting against God"
> any more than they were in that ancient world when hospitals were being
> opened as a religious duty. Man is expected to work and toil in a hard
> world, not sit around and passively endure every pain that comes to pass.
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
> Schwarzwald said:
> "What's the plan and purpose for someone who lives a full and relatively
> happy life, dying at age 80? "
>
> If someone lives to 80, they can serve the Lord in missions, evangelism,
> etc. If they live to be only 1 day old, they can do nothing for God.
>
> Schwarzwald said:
> "As I said, the Christian message is that plan and purpose isn't exhausted
> by earthly life - I'd add, or individual experience - so it makes no sense
> to ask the question in that context."
>
> As a Christian, I'd agree this earthly life isn't all there is. However,
> if the Christian message is, as the "40 Days of Purpose" book says (and one
> of my former Pastors, "Everything happens for a reason"), God makes everyone
> for a purpose; that seems ridiculous when one knows of all the premature
> deaths that happen worldwide. The only way to believe that (God has a
> special purpose/plan for everyone) is by having blinders on and living in a
> cocoon, I think. Unless you think God's purpose is that so many natural
> abortions and birth defects happen.
>
> 'Ancient theology' (my term) says that death and sickness is the result of
> Adam's sin. God cursed the Earth because of Adam's sin. Birth defects are
> a part of that curse (birth defects not God's good will). I don't think
> most modern Christians believe this anymore ('ancient theology'). And
> modern medicine is rebelling against this curse to nullify it. In the USA,
> early death can be avoided. If God intended babies to die early for a
> reason, He must not be too powerful to have modern humans circumvent that
> and save the babies.
>
> Schwarzwald said:
> "Or maybe you're asking me "What purpose could someone dying so early
> possibly fulfill"?"
>
> Yes- that was the intent of the question.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:57 AM
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> What's the plan and purpose for someone who lives a full and relatively
> happy life, dying at age 80? As I said, the Christian message is that plan
> and purpose isn't exhausted by earthly life - I'd add, or individual
> experience - so it makes no sense to ask the question in that context.
>
> The only other angle I can see you coming at with your question is one with
> the unspoken implication "Wouldn't it have been better if this baby was
> never conceived to begin with?" Again, if we're operating within the
> Christian view, that just seems strange to ask. Whether someone dies 1 month
> after conception or 1000 months, they have a future beyond death to look
> forward to. If they can expect salvation - and from my perspective, even if
> they can expect something less than salvation but not everlasting tortuous
> hell - it's clear to me that, no, it's vastly better that they were
> conceived.
>
> Or maybe you're asking me "What purpose could someone dying so early
> possibly fulfill"? And there, I can see so many answers that can go on top
> of "For their own sake". But they would all be answers similar to what I'm
> sure you've run into already - lessons their (short) life teaches others,
> effects they have on others, what they indirectly bring about, what they
> demonstrate about the value (overestimating and underestimating) of earthly
> life and existence, etc.
>
> Hopefully you see where I'm coming from here.
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
> Schwarzwald said:
> "And frankly, it's not as if we're somehow more special just because we
> live longer lives than said babies - nor is God "done" with us after we die,
> whether it's at 1 month or 100 years. The Christian message has been that
> God has a plan and place for everyone, and that this plan isn't predicated
> on living some long, healthy, happy life."
>
> So what is the plan and purpose for a baby that died after childbirth?
> There are probably thousands of cases of this every day around the world.
> I'm asking from a "God's will" perspective; not a theodicy question.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:00 PM
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> God has created all of us "specifically to die". Death no more eludes us
> than it does any baby who dies inside or outside of the womb.
>
> And frankly, it's not as if we're somehow more special just because we live
> longer lives than said babies - nor is God "done" with us after we die,
> whether it's at 1 month or 100 years. The Christian message has been that
> God has a plan and place for everyone, and that this plan isn't predicated
> on living some long, healthy, happy life. In fact, I'd think the experiences
> of Christ Himself would have made it clear that God's plan can include (and
> often does include) a tragic, premature death. Once someone accepts that
> even one particular tragic, early death can make total sense in the
> Christian perspective, it illustrates how any death - even of a child in the
> womb - can fit into a plan and purpose. Put another way, a dead child still
> has value. Dying young, even too young to have been born, does not make a
> person's existence somehow meaningless or pointless.
>
> Personally, I don't "struggle" with the problem of pain or evil anymore,
> and haven't for a long time. On the Christian worldview it makes complete
> sense that there exists pain and death (even in abundance) in our universe
> (and I don't think "evolution" adds much to that particular issue anyway).
> Frankly, it's also justifiable in a jewish, muslim, or hindu worldview as
> well, and probably other theistic views. In fact, it's death and evil is
> vastly more problematic for atheists who seriously contend the world is so
> evil that no good God would be responsible for it or willingly expose anyone
> to it, or who for whatever reason still try to load words like "good" or
> "evil" with meaning at all.
>
> (Though, in response to David Clounch, I have no problem seeing destiny and
> purpose in a world where evolution is true. I don't think TEs are
> particularly hobbled on the question just by nature of their accepting
> evolution. If anything they're hobbled because they simply, for whatever
> reason, tend to avoid thinking and speaking in those terms - but that's not
> a result of their believing in evolution, unless it's of evolution that was
> ultimately/entirely unplanned and unguided, which seems very rare.)
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
> David C. said:
> "A pre-loaded universe only makes sense if it explains what your personal
> unique meaning is to the creator, and also explains your destiny, where you
> are going. It makes no sense to say a creator pre-loaded the universe to
> produce Bernie, and then have nothing to predict where Bernie is going. "
>
> Hi David-
>
> I don't understand how anyone, and I mean anyone, can think God directly
> makes all people for His direct plans.
>
> Consider all the spontaneous abortions (naturally occurring), still births,
> birth defects, etc. God created all those people specifically to die? I
> myself had a daughter that died a few moments after birth, due to birth
> defects. I don't think that was God's direct will (you will likely say His
> permissive will). And it is not just about my experience- it is multiplied
> my many times all over the world, even more in undeveloped nations (where
> even healthy babies and mom's die due to birth complications that could be
> avoided in the USA). So God made you and has plans for your life... what
> about all those others who died way too premature? This is not a TE or YEC
> question, but a question really posed for all Christians to consider... one
> I struggle with too.
>
> So are you a special case in that God has a plan for you and your life, but
> not for those who die of birth defects? Or is that just a "I don't know and
> I'll have to ask God when I get to heaven" question...
>
> David C. said:
> "Atheism, the worldview you seem to be endorsing Bernie..."
>
> I'm a Christian agnostic ... still sorting things out...
>
> ...Bernie
> (PS: Please know that it may sound personal and I may be upset, but it is
> really a content question and I'm not emotional about it... you can't show
> that over email.)
> ________________________________________
> From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> Bernie,
>
> I have come to appreciate your posts. No matter how much I may disagree
> with them. I find your candor refreshing.
>
> The view you just put forth is what millions of students have arrived at.
> Please note your conclusion - the idea that God made humans is to be
> rejected. Well, that is certainly not a theistic evolutionists viewpoint
> (as I have come to understand TE).
> As far as I can tell you seem to have separated human origins from theism.
> It seems very clean cut.
>
> On the door to my private study is a sign. It reads,
>
> "If people, like rocks, are mere occurrences, then they can have no more
> meaning than rocks".
>
> And you are correct that the thin veneer of humanism layered on top of the
> cold hard truth is just there so we can pretend we feel better.
>
> But what if the atheist worldview is wrong? What if humans are more than
> rocks? What if they have a future destiny that is non-natural?
>
> This is where the TE worldview has failed to fill in the blanks. A
> pre-loaded universe only makes sense if it explains what your personal
> unique meaning is to the creator, and also explains your destiny, where
> you are going. It makes no sense to say a creator pre-loaded the universe
> to produce Bernie, and then have nothing to predict where Bernie is going.
> Let me put it this way: rocks on the beach are not going to be spending time
> with their children one million years from now. But the resurrected
> Christians will be doing so. See the difference? What I am getting at is:
> a viable theory of origins contains a viable theory of destiny. Atheism,
> the worldview you seem to be endorsing Bernie, has no theory of destiny.
> Neither do deistic theories. This is why deistic Christianity isn't
> convincing. It isn't theologically complete enough to compete with
> traditional Christian approaches.
>
> From my admittedly ignorant viewpoint, some TE theorists I have read on
> this list attempt to solve this gap by putting a ghost in the machine - by
> invoking souls and theistic action that isn't physical. I've been wary of
> this idea for quite some time. Seems to me (and I could be wrong) it makes
> them a modern version of "immortal deist" as opposed to "mortal deists" who
> would deny there is any destiny or any soul. Or it makes them a certain
> form of theist who believes God cannot affect the physical but only affects
> the soul. The right wingers (YECs/OECs/etc) reject all that. They say God
> can touch the physical any time He wants. He operates in the universe. He
> terraforms solar systems the way a painter mixes paints. The painting is
> both natural and non-natural. It would not exist without the painter mixing
> up the paint.
>
> So Bernie, you seem to moving in the direction that there is no painter
> because the paint just gets mixed naturally. And indeed a great deal of it
> does. But doesn't this just make Bernie (and indeed all of us) one more
> accident in a maelstrom of accidents? I don't think science says that at
> all. I think its naturalism (and I don't mean Christian naturalism) which
> says that.
>
> -Dave
>
> PS - I didnt even get to the problem with conflating cosmological evolution
> with other forms of evolution. They have totally different meaning - but you
> have conflated them together as a principle. This is what the leftists on
> the state science standards committees want you and all our children to
> believe. In your case Bernie they seem to have convinced you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
> Actually- after accepting evolution- my whole worldview has changed.
> Accepting evolution makes me understand things in a better way (designing
> products, competition for resources, jobs, etc). We put a human layer on
> the top of it to soften it, but the layer is only a layer, and not the real
> underpinnings of the machine. All of science is important, but evolution
> maybe even more important as it helps us to understand how the world runs
> and operates (from cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, biological
> evolution, etc.). I'm still researching and understanding evolutionary
> impacts, and much of it has to do with unlearning some Christian doctrines
> (such as humans made 'de novo' (as Lemoureux would say) by God).
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> There's a small point I'd add to Moorad's observation here.
>
> As I've said before, I personally am very at home with evolution, and
> what's more, I always have been. But in the past few years, what I've
> started to find odd is the insistence that evolution is the single most
> important scientific claim in town. I cannot name a single other scientific
> topic that has so many educators collectively wringing their hands,
> wondering how they can get more students (or even adults out of school) to
> accept it. Why is there no comparable concern to promote the understanding
> of, say.. quantum mechanics, and how it differs from our common sense view
> of the world? (Indeed, if the authors of Quantum Enigma are right - and I'm
> not saying they are - the actual hope is that scientific laymen pay no
> attention to that topic.) What about geological processes, or chemistry, or
> any other number of topics? Why so much focus on one, and far and away only
> one, scientific issue? And why does that same focus suggest that
> understanding evolution is secondary to prof!
>
> essed belief in it? And more than that, professed belief with as little
> room for speculations on guidance, purpose, intelligence and otherwise as
> possible?
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Douglas Hayworth <
> becomingcreation@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI and FWIW, I commented briefly about this in one of my blog posts:
>
> http://becomingcreation.org/2009/03/like-it-or-not/
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Alexanian, Moorad<alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
> > The central issue
> >
> >
> > The central issue of the essay is the need to teach biological
> evolution</wiki/Biological_evolution> in the context of debate about
> creation and evolution in public
> education</wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education> in the United
> States.[2] The fact that evolution occurs explains the interrelatedness of
> the various facts of biology, and so makes biology make sense.[3] The
> concept has become firmly established as a unifying idea in biology
> education.[4]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It is interesting that it does not say "as a unifying idea in biological
> research."
> >
> >
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:09:14 -0500
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 14:10:21 EDT