Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

As I said, the evil came from the fall of Satan. He created us gradually into a corrupt world for His purposes which I surmise to be similar to the glimpse of Him we get from the book of Job. It is not a testing or proving ground as that is about us but it is to reflect goodness and Godliness to the powers of darkness that tempt us as that makes it about Him. In short, I see humanity and all of creation including the evil as being intended to used as pawns in the cosmic quest of rendering and pronouncing judgement on Satan. We are the witnesses called to testify that God alone is worthy of worship and not Satan which was his error to begin with.

Since God is love, and Satan and his demons were all created beings that God presumably still loves, it is logical to me to believe that He would be just and fair with them and show them the error of their ways before banishing them to eternal punishment.

The extent to which God has anything to do with evil in the world is that He chooses to allow it for His purposes like we see in the book of Job. And that was to teach Satan a spiritual lesson.

Thanks

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Cc: Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>; Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>; ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 11:44:44 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

The question, John, is what relationship God has, if any, to the evil.
Does He have responsibility for it?  Is He separated from it?  Is the
evil in this world envisioned as a kind of testing ground, or a
purgatory?  However, you answer will likely say something of your notion
of God.

Perhaps, as you say, the origin of evil, is less important than that
there is evil.  But it has long been wondered how or why it came to be
in the world.

I don't get at all why you think a TE position has nothing to do with
the problem of evil.  If TE presumes that God has something to do with
the world, He has something to do with the evil in it.

That the world was born "red in tooth and claw" could be
construed as contrary to the work of a Good God.  I'm certain you don't
believe it to be contrary, but in saying so, I presume you have more to
say, something that "justifies" such a creation to be good.

But perhaps not.  Perhaps that is all that can be safely said.  And
there we rest our speculation.

You tell me.

bill

On Fri, 16 Oct
2009, John Walley wrote:

> Not in the least. I reject special creation because of the compelling evidence of CD from pseudogenes, particularly psi GULO as I mentioned.

I am not sure I follow your thinking below but the problem of evil hinges on OEC not TE. If you can no longer lay natural evil on the fall of man by accepting an old earth, then you have to account for it somewhere else.

I choose to believe that nature was created "red in tooth and claw" as a result of the fall of Satan and all of creation is cursed and is the stage on which is being played out a spiritual battle of good versus evil like we see in the book of Job. Those that overcome their fallen human nature through Christ progress the cause of good, and those that don't progress the other cause. 

Whether God created us suddenly or gradually into a cursed creation has no impact on the problem of evil. The only relevant point is the concept of the fall and whether that is literal or figurative. It is an unknown and I take the position it doesn't matter since the problem of evil and a selfish survival of the fittest nature predates it anyway regardless.

Thanks

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
To: Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
Cc: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>; ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 8:49:30 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra

Dennis & John:

Am I to take it that you both have, at least in part, rejected a special
creation because of the problem of evil?

If so, how do you avoid Manichean tendencies?

For it is not enough to say that God instituted secondary causes.  It
is, to quote my daughter, still His fault.  Instead, one must take it
out of God's Hands, make it something that He cannot do, if you intend
to "defend God."

It is not enough to say in a free-will defence that God wanted to give man
(or nature) free will.  Something must be said that makes it clear that
God had no choice.  E.g., it is impossible, even for God, that man be
free and that he not be capable of evil.  Of course, one would have to
explain what kind of "impossibility" this is (physical, logical, etc.).
In postulating this "impossibility" one must explain why this is not a
separate, autonomous god.

bill

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Dennis Venema wrote:

> Yes, this example is a nice one because its implications are readily seen even by non-specialists. The point to drive home, however, is that this is but one example of thousands and thousands that converge on the same conclusion.
>
> While science doesn't offer absolute proof, it can offer what my PhD supervisor used to call the "Bl**dy obvious test" - apologies for the language. Comparative genomics is well into "bl**dy obvious" territory on this issue. Only large-scale denial or misrepresentation of the issue will suffice for an anti-common descent apologetic.
>
> So, in my view, game over for YEC and OEC, as well as for anti-common descent forms of ID.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 15/10/09 2:57 PM, "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "but the presence of pseudogenes don't imply the game is over for YEC"
>
> Yes in a way it does because at least in the case of psi GULO, it forks their design argument by making them defend why God wanted humans to have scurvy.
>
> This example of a pseudogene alone convinced me to become a TE. Any other example could conceivably be argued to have some type of unknown or unappreciated design characteristic to it but this one with its obvious deleterious effects is really hard to defend.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:42:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra
>
> I don't think this is really the case.  The standard answers probably apply here: "God made it that way", and "it may be that we will find a use for the so'-called junk DNA and pseudogenes" serve pretty well as answers, just like "the earth is young, even though it may appear old".  Whether such arguments are convincing for those reasonably acquainted with the strength of the evidence is another matter, but the presence of pseudogenes don't imply the game is over for YEC.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra
>
> I see your point.
>
> How about this "We don't self-manufacture vitamin c; we win."  Then you explain why we don't have vitamin c internally produced, unlike our descendents, because of bad gene copies (the pseudogene argument using vitamin c as a poster-boy).
>
> Although fossils are easier too comprehend, it seems like the YEC's also have a good time-tested twist/story on them, at first glance.  But when it comes to pseudogenes, the argument is over, and there's no good comeback for a YEC.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>

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 Sat Oct 17 05:05:12 2009