Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
And yet the response according to you to that transgression of man is that He conferred death and suffering not just on the culpible pair and mankind but on all life on earth.Do you believe in an omnipotent God or not?Even our Justice system hold the perpetrator responsible and does not kill all the family members for the evil of one man.Why should God be less just than our fallible system?Of course we dont know what is the ultimate plan of God and can only accept what is and accept by faith our position that life and growth can continue into eternity with no death.As it was in the beginning. That is the literalists faith position but I fear it does leave any room for any science of what is and it would be best not to allow for any science in that schemata.
But we are not simply talking about imputed guilt. Human beings really are sinners in themselves. And considering how quickly seemingly small acts of evil grow into great acts of evil, I believe that God is being abundantly fair. If selfishness were allowed to flourish, it would destroy everything. If Hitler and Stalin were still alive, I dread the thought of what our world would be like today. Evil must be nipped in the bud!
Something does not compute in this model and account of the fall and I like everyone struggle with the problem of evil and death. But I do see death as an inevitable consequence of carbon based life based on growth.Most death has a natural cause.A cancer gene, a plaque in a coronary artery an infectious disease a fall from impossible heights, sudden impact with a stationary object while sitting in a small metal box travelling at many meters for second.These are not evil these are natural consequence of life and of natural law.Did God do it this way. I suspect yes but you cannot conceive of it but then again I have not found anyone who can conceive of immortal life for carbon based life that grows and expands without death and turnover. In medicine and biology we call that a cancer.there is a symmetry and a balance.Life Growth and Death.They are the principles of all life we see around us.
I admit that I do not have all the answers because I have never observed a perfect world. But I’m not sure why carbon based life could not be eternal? If the genome were kept in pristine condition without being attacked by free radicals and other harmful agents, there would be no cancer genes or plaques in arteries. And suppose that originally all bacteria and viruses were beneficial and none of them were pathogens. In that case, there would be no infectious diseases. I actually think there may be a hint in the real world that this was originally the case. Consider the fact that among pre-Columbian native Americans, many of the old-world diseases were unknown. Could it be that when the native American ancestors arrived in the new world during the post-flood ice age, these diseases had not developed yet? I think that is a distinct possibility. If all genomes were kept in pristine condition, I don’t see why death from diseases or old age need take place; in fact, the aging process itself would not occur. Remember, the human body is different from machines because it regenerates all its cells. This means that it is an open system which need not be subject to the second law of thermodynamics. The fact that we regenerate our cells also suggests to me that our bodies were not intended to wear out. And what if animals instinctively stopped breeding when their population reached a sustainable limit? I have heard that elephants actually are imbued with this instinct even today, but what if it was common to all soulish animals? Freedom from accidents does seem more difficult to explain, but I do not know how the natural world in a paradise would be constructed. We could be missing something.
Again, I am not suggesting that my comments here should be set in stone, but they seem fairly reasonable to me.
I can see and appreciate the life we see aroundus as of God and his creation.There is indeedbeauty among the ugly.But is it evil and suffering that God enjoys?No more than he might enjoy the consequence of his gift of free will.The HPTFTU that is the natural man. Is free will worth it?Is carbon based life worth it?Is say yes praise the Lord.
I agree that free will and carbon based life are worth it. But I cannot conceive of suffering and death as being worth it. If God enjoys those things, He is a sadist.
What is evil then;Now a man plunging a bayonet into a mans chest that rises to the level of an act of conscious will and under almost all circumstances is evil.
Under nearly all circumstances, it is evil. But there are exceptions. There really are some people who are so evil that they deserve to die. I can understand being a pacifist because war is horrible. I hate war, but I am not a complete pacifist because I believe there are things that are worse than war and that simply must be stopped. This is a difficult issue, and if you disagree with me, I will not contest you. But be aware that hurting and abusing animals is very wrong. Some years ago, a man here in America was prosecuted for tying his beagle puppy to his car and dragging the puppy to death. Animals are sentient creatures, and abusing them is evil.
Religion is concerned about the injustice of death particularly death as Isaiah says when the person is less than 100 years old. Belief in God is about seeking to transcend the carbon based life where there is suffering and death to live beyond what is.The Judeo Christian traditions say that God is beyond all this but asks us to live now as we would then.We are judged morally by how we live in the now according to the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven not by some meaningless orthodoxy that has no consequence.
Heaven is not achieved by works; eternal life is a free gift – by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I’m doubtful that eternal life means transcending carbon based life because Jesus had a body of flesh and bones after His resurrection, and Paul tells us that our resurrected bodies will be like His body. I could be wrong, but that sounds like a glorified carbon-based body. Also remember that Isaiah saw animals in heaven (or the new earth). I suspect that at least some animals will be resurrected.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
