Re: [asa] (death of kids) Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

Bernie,

I'd say that everything which happens is part of God's plan - for the
universe, for those individuals, for those affected by the individual's
experiences, and so on and so forth. You seem to keep asking me this, but oh
well - I'll gladly keep affirming it.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Schwarzwald-
>
> So, you are saying that when a child dies of birth defects, spontaneous
> abortions, etc., that it is all in accordance to God’s specific plan for
> that individual, correct?
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 6:53 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (death of kids)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
> Yes and no. Yes, God has a plan for both of them. And yes, their deaths -
> whenever it may come - is part of the plan. But a 'plan for their lives'
> isn't how I would put it, because in this context it implies some kind of
> finality - "the plan for the child in the impoverished country was to die of
> starvation, and the plan for the child in the USA was to live, full stop."
> No, the plan for both children is a lot more than that - their resurrection
> is part of the plan. Their life after resurrection is part of the plan.
> Somehow even Christians seem to forget this.
>
> David,
>
> I don't think a TE position needs to utterly rule out "tinkering", just as
> they may not need to utterly rule it in (admittedly that gets trickier with
> miracles, for example.) I can sit around and think up a tremendous multitude
> of ways for God to have set up the universe - some entirely front-loaded,
> some requiring constant second by second tinkering, some in between, and
> some more than that. Maybe God set up a universe that requires tinkering to
> achieve a definite end, and front-loaded the tinkering. I personally am not
> beholden to any particular one of these views - it rather strikes me as
> coming up with a theory of just what comprises the code for a program which
> outputs "Hello World!" six times on the screen at 7:32pm. There's a million,
> perhaps an infinite number, of ways to achieve that, ranging from good
> old-fashioned full-on/complete front loading to one where all manner of
> random variables are in play to one where the "program" did nothing but let
> some guy paste whatever output he wanted onto your screen whenever he wished
> via the internet.
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:53 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 Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:13:50 -0400