@pauluc: I know this argument is repeated often, but that …

Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.

@pauluc: I know this argument is repeated often, but that doesn’t mean it is tired or wrong. All the instances of sacrifice that you mention are post-fall and do not reflect God’s original plan. In God’s original plan, moral perfection was the norm, and any deviation from this imperils the happiness of the entire universe. This is why the death penalty is attached to breaking God’s law and why substitutionary atonement is necessary. But that doesn’t make it nice; God’s original plan was much better. In the same way, to quote General Sherman (from the American Civil War), “War is hell.” But sadly, in this fallen world, war is sometimes necessary to prevent even greater evil. But suffering, war, and death have never been a loving God’s will.

The existence of predation has bothered many people who have found it irreconcilable with a God of love. It bothered Charles Darwin, who was gradually driven toward agnosticism by it. Darwin really did make a valiant effort to be a theistic evolutionist, but the contradictions were too great for him. It also bothers the contemporary philosopher, Quentin Smith, who became an atheist because of it. Read the following article by Quentin Smith. I don’t agree with his atheistic conclusions, but I think he has a valid point, and I also think I understand why he is an atheist. I believe in a very loving God Who has never desired suffering and death for human beings or animals.

infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/evil_laws.html

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.”