RE: [asa] (Job) Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

Merv:
" To think the book of Job gives a neat packaged answer that it was/is all just an experiment -- a little wager between the powers above does extreme violence to a profound book."

Job doesn't know the reason for the suffering, because God never told him. However, the reader of the story is told by the author. Why did Job suffer so much? The book says why, although Job never got the direct answer.

Merv:
" For one thing, Bernie, if that was all God wanted to communicate,"

I don't think I said or implied that was ALL it was about. I agree- there are many other sub-themes.

Merv:
"How does poetry survive in a television age?"

I think TV and movies have vastly advanced the art of story-telling. Many of the classics (they are classics because they are so good) seem to have moral points made in them. Modern stories can also touch the heart and inform the mind in profound emotional/intellectual ways.

Merv:
" And if the ancients could observe our preferences... They would probably laugh to hear us call ourselves enlightened."

I don't think so. I think the opposite- they would be awestruck with how we use technology to enhance story-telling.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: mrb22667@kansas.net [mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:52 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] (Job) Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

To think the book of Job gives a neat packaged answer that it was/is all just an
experiment -- a little wager between the powers above does extreme violence to a
profound book. Of course, I'm in no position to elaborate on the depths of what
is there, then, but I still think it runs a lot deeper than the neat sound-bite
that we modern folks want everything to reduce to. I'm not denying those
disturbing elements in Job, but just pointing out that those are hardly the
entire content or even necessarily the point of the book.

For one thing, Bernie, if that was all God wanted to communicate, specifically
to the scientifically rutted (and television conditioned) mindsets of a peculiar
culture three thousand years later, then the 'book' of Job would probably be
about three sentences long, giving what would have to pass for terse 'answers'
to a very deep and profound problem. Instead what we get is chapters of the
agonizings of a suffering Job and the attempted 'comfort' from his friends
trying their own hand at theodicy and answers to the problem of evil. I don't
think the 'point' of the book, if such a thing could be said to reduce to a
'point', is to deliver a soundbite answer just for those of us who would like one.

How does poetry survive in a television age? One wonders. If any
accommodation is needed, perhaps we are the most in need of it. The ancients,
or a few of them, obviously had time to ponder deep things. But for us, we
might (for example)need the highly repetitive and tedious Psalms to be given in
150 short sentence sound bites. ...and since many of those 150 are redundant,
we could probably narrow that down to about ten and cover all the broad
categories. And if the ancients could observe our preferences, they might
scratch their heads and wonder how a culture so prolific with published words,
thoughts, ideas, and philosophies deems itself to have time for so few. They
would probably laugh to hear us call ourselves enlightened.

--Merv

Quoting "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>:

> Hi John-
>
> I think the book of Job says the reason for Job's suffering was because of an
> experiment done on him. Satan and God agreed that Job was righteous and
> blameless, but what would Job do if all his blessing were taken away-
> everything taken from him except life? Let's try it and find out. That was
> an experiment, and I think Job passed (because God blessed him again). Job
> didn't know the reason for his ordeal, but the reader is told, and the reason
> is disheartening. Seems to me like Job's family was treated as collateral
> damage- no payback for them for their deaths. They are treated pretty much
> just as property in the story... as if they wouldn't be missed because God
> gave Job more relatives to replace the old ones.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:24 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] (Job)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> What I see as the lesson from Job is that we are all created for His use and
> glory even if it means He spends our lives or the life of our children for
> some purpose of His that we may never know, as in the case of Job who also
> Job didn't know why all those terrible things happened to him and his
> children. That is ultimate trust and being a living sacrifice.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 12:01:46 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] (Job)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> John walley:
> "'But the lesson from Job makes this very clearly wrong"
>
> Briefly- what do you see as 'the lesson from Job?'
>
> ...Benrie
>
> ________________________________
> From: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:13 PM
> To: Schwarzwald; asa @calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> I think this is a profound perspective. Not meaning to be insensitive to your
> loss Bernie, but I think we can make the same presumptions on God through our
> expectations of life as we do in our theology like the YEC's. But the lesson
> from Job makes this very clearly wrong, provided we accept that as accurate
> theology. I know this is a theodicy based response but I don't see how we can
> divorce the meaning of life from that. I think everything comes down to
> theodicy.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa @calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:57:11 PM
> 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<mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto: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 professed 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa " (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto: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 Aug 19 17:25:09 2009