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

George, Thanks for your comments. I disagree however that ackowledging the presence of evil in the world equates to giving evil creative powers. There is some truth to that however as we see the concepts of evil spreading and growing in scripture which is akin to evil having creative power. And just for Gregory's sake, I will draw the analogy of it being like an evil meme. It is well known that alcoholism and child abuse travel through generations. Is there a biological basis for these? Granted God chooses to allow evil but that doesn't make him responsible for it.   But that doesn't put the origin of evil on God if He chose to create a being with free will and that being chose to rebel and introduce evil. And once introduced, God then has His plan B which play out like I described below. That doesn't mean that Satan created it however. So I still contend it is reasonable to portray Satan as the source of evil in the world. Thanks John ________________________________ From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; ASA <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 5:09:30 PM Subject: Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw (was: Ken Miller's mantra) 2 things badly wrong here.  1st, you badly misread Chapters 1 & 2 of Job.  "Satan" there is not really a proper name but a title.  The Hebrew is "the Satan" (hasatan), meaning "the adversary" or (as in NRSV margin) "the Accuser."  (Cf. the sitaution in Gen.2 & 3 where ha'adham is "the man" or "the human," not a proper name.)  "The Satan" in Job is not a rebellious enemy of God.  (If he were that, why is gathered with the others "sons of God" & carrying on a conversation with the LORD?)  He is instead a zealous - indeed over-zealous - prosecuting attorney who is, in modern terms, trying to entrap Job.  (There is a similar situation implied in Zech.3:1-2.)   More importantly, the idea that evil in the world is due to the fact that "creation was constrained by some similar presumption of Satan" is perilously close to the dualistic Manichaean heresy in which an evil anti-God has geneuine creative powers.  If Satan really has the power to determine the character of the world then he is on the same creative level as God.   In order to avoid this, it's essential to emphasize that whatever else we may say about Satan, he is a creature of God and can only act to the extent that God allows.  In fact, we have to understand that whatever is done by Satan must be done with divine cooperation or (if one is squeamish about that) at least divine permission.  & once we've said that, Satan can no longer be seen as a solution of the problem of evil in the world.       Shalom George http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm   ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com> To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw (was: Ken Miller's mantra) > > > 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.eduwith > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.eduwith > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.eduwith > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > > > >      > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.eduwith > "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 Oct 20 06:21:11 2009