Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw (was: Ken Miller's mantra)

John, have you ever read Voltaire's "Candide"? Your 'best of all possible
worlds' is the exact subject of his parody. Doesn't mean you are wrong --but
Bernie is in venerable classic company as he pokes at this.

Bernie, I think you are close to something profound when you suggest that "red
in tooth & claw" is good (or at least must be equated by those of Christian
faith which you perhaps reject in part because of this.) Perhaps in some larger
sense, it is NOT good, though I struggle with how this can be, given an
evolutionary past. But it isn't so hard to see this in human terms.

In a world of sinful human beings, suffering actually may well be good even
though none of us (by definition) likes it at the time. Jesus warns us about
this time & again. Those who get along well in the world, beware! If you
follow me you will suffer. Even suffering at the hands of 'indifferent' nature
is but another opportunity to craft our character.

--Merv

Quoting John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>:
>
> I definitely believe creation reflects God's goodness and the red in tooth
> and claw in no way implies He is mean. Nature isn't simply good or bad but it
> is a little of both and I think that reflects the terms of the wager God took
> up from Satan when he created the universe and nature and life on earth. I
> believe the best of all possible worlds scenario is correct but with emphasis
> on possible.
>
> In Job we're told Satan presumed he could get him to curse God in various
> scenarios but Job proved him wrong. To me it is rational to believe that
> creation was constrained by some similar presumption of Satan where he
> wagered he could get creation to worship him instead of God, i.e. human
> nature being basically selfish, dependent on the physical environment, a
> competitive environment, scarcity of resources, prone to carnal pleasures,
> etc. And here we are. Its our job to prove him wrong as well just like Job
> did.
>
> To me that pretty elegantly explains all of natural and manmade history,
> current and future events, and all theology including theodicy and all of the
> hard questions of life as well.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 2:34:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] red in tooth and claw (was: Ken Miller's mantra)
>
> John Walley said:
> "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."
>
> I don't think Satan can be blamed for 'red in tooth and claw' because
> evolution can be viewed as the way (design method) God intended for creating
> new things.  Without evolution, no creation.  Therefore, evolution is good,
> not bad, and God even declared his creation as good.
>
> I think maybe a new theological key may be to somehow look at 'red in tooth
> and claw' as something good, not bad.  The 'red in tooth and claw' is a way
> of sculpting.  People sculpt images out of wood and metal with very sharp
> objects.  In the same way, God maybe used that process, not because he's
> mean, but because it is the best of all possible ways to create using natural
> laws.  Then when man is produced, he has the power to overcome this
> evolutionary cycle with 'the image of God' (supreme forms of love,
> relationship, intelligence, etc.).
>
> So maybe Christians should view the 'red in tooth and claw' as positive
> rather than negative... God's good creation process?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:58 PM
> To: Bill Powers; Dennis Venema
> Cc: Jon Tandy; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Ken Miller's mantra
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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 Sun Oct 18 17:35:49 2009