How Could God Create Through Evolution?: A Look at Theodicy, Part 1

July 22, 2010
Category: Guest Features

How Could God Create Through Evolution?: A Look at Theodicy, Part 1

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by Bethany Sollereder. Bethany Sollereder has a Master's Degree in Christian Studies from Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. Her focus was on science and religion, and her thesis was entitled "Evolutionary Theodicy: Toward an Evangelical Perspective." She has been accepted into PhD studies at the University of Exeter and hopes to start in 2011. Bethany's first degree was in intercultural studies. Bethany's other great love is 19th century British history, so when she is not reading about science and religion, she can usually be found reading Victorian literature.

“How could a good God create through a process that involves so much pain and death?” For many people, accepting evolution is less a scientific question than a theological one. After all, seeing evolution as God’s method of creation requires affirming that death, pain, and natural disasters are part of God’s creative toolbox instead of a result of the Fall. In this three-part blog series, I will first look at how theologians and scientists have seen the world in contrary ways, and then reflect theologically on how a world created through evolutionary means can be good.

First, let’s see how theologians have thought about our world. Theologians––academic and popular, contemporary and ancient––have almost universally affirmed the connection between sin and physical death. Drawing from passages such as Genesis 3 and Romans 5 & 8, they have argued that death came through sin. In regard to the natural world, this means invoking a Cosmic Fall scenario in which not only human death came through the Fall, but earthquakes, tornadoes, pain, predation, and disease as well.

Consider this quotation from John Calvin: “For it appears that all the evils of the present life, which experience proves to be innumerable, have proceeded from the same fountain. The inclemency of the air, frost, thunders, unseasonable rains, drought, hail, and whatever is disorderly in the world, are the fruits of sin. Nor is there any other primary cause of diseases.”1 Pretty clear, right? God did not want these “evils” to be part of the world, and the only reason they exist is because of human sin.

What’s more, theologians see the redemption by Christ on the cross as the denunciation of these natural evils. For example, T. F. Torrance writes “The Cross of Christ tells us unmistakably that all physical evil, not only pain, suffering, disease, corruption, death, and of course cruelty and venom in animals as well as human behaviour, but also ‘natural’ calamities, devastations and monstrosities are an outrage against the love of God and a contradiction of good order in his creation.”2

Scientists, on the other hand, have looked at these same natural phenomena, and have come to the conclusion that realities like pain, earthquakes, and death are in fact necessary to good and flourishing lives. How do they do this? Let’s look at two examples: earthquakes and pain.

When discussing plate tectonics3, the media tends to focus on the negative effects of our planet’s mobile plates. We hear about volcanic activity that shuts down European flight zones, tsunamis that devastate whole populations, and of course earthquakes, which have caused major devastations and cost many people their lives in Haiti, China, and Chile. How can earthquakes be good? What else does the plate cycle do?

First, plate tectonics, through the rotation of the mantle below, contributes to the magnetic field which surrounds our planet, keeping the atmosphere in and warding off deadly cosmic rays from the sun, which would destroy life if they reached the planet. Second, plate tectonic movement involves the solid plates being forced down into the liquid mantle and melting in some places, while in other places the plates separate and allow hot magma to rise and solidify. This recycling uses up heat produced by the interior radiation of the earth. This process is so effective that it uses up almost 90% of the heat produced by the Earth. In comparison, on Venus, the lack of plate tectonics means that the same heat produced by the core does not get recycled, and the pressure and heat build up so high that the distinction between mantle and crust gets lost––the whole planet goes molten. The rest of the time, surface temperatures average around 500 degrees Celsius. There are many other advantages to plate tectonics, including stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, maintaining temperatures for liquid surface water, renewing nutrients in the soil, and keeping a distinction between ocean and continent. Life, and certainly human life in this world, simply does not have a chance without plate tectonics. I do not want to understate the great human and animal cost associated with earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, but without plate tectonics, there would be no life at all. I would affirm that this world’s plate tectonics are part of God’s very good creation.

What about pain? If any of us were given the choice to live without pain, most of us would say an enthusiastic “yes please!” Until, that is, we saw what a life without pain really looks like. In our mind’s eye we would imagine striding untouched though hardship and peril, like a real-life Superman, able to conquer all the aches and pains that keep us from reaching our full potential. In reality, a painless life is a horror show. In reality, painlessness looks like leprosy.

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s Disease, is a bacterial infection that invades the body’s pain nerves and ultimately destroys them, leaving the person with an inability to feel pain. That is, in fact, almost all that leprosy does. The subsequent damage that we associate with leprosy––fingers falling off, open wounds, and missing limbs––does not actually come from the bacteria themselves, but from the resulting painlessness. Patients burn themselves and do not pull back; they walk on broken limbs and do not notice. In the book The Gift of Pain, Paul Brand describes how in one African clinic, rats were coming in the night and feeding on patients fingers, and because they felt no pain, they slept on.4 Pain is a good thing, our ever-present protector, developed through an evolutionary process to help us live good lives. Now, this is not to say that pain never goes wild. It does, and with realities like chronic pain or torture, pain can become an enemy. But that does not undermine the fact that our ability to feel pain is a great gift; it just means that sometimes that gift becomes twisted in its expression. The solution is not to wish for a world with no pain, but for a world where pain is appropriately experienced.

Now let me insert one caveat here: in no way do I want to say that just because pain is “natural” that we have no responsibility to help relieve it. That is not what I am arguing. I would say that pain serves important purposes, which are needed for a good life. At the same time, we should look to the example of Jesus, who walked into pain-filled situations and brought healing, regardless of the cause of the suffering. It is our recognition of suffering in the other5 and our responsibility of stewardship to one another that must motivate our medical ethics.

There is a lot more that we could talk about here. We could speak of predation, which encourages biodiversity and drives evolutionary innovation. We could explore how physical death is a good and necessary part of a world that has limited resources, keeping organisms from becoming cancerous (cancer cells never die on their own and are thus “immortal”). These are important, but they roughly follow the same type of argumentation as above. In my next post, I will look at the values of a world developed through an evolutionary process, or, as it is sometimes asked, “Why didn’t God simply create heaven in the first place?”

Notes

1. John Calvin, Commentaries upon the First Book of Moses called Genesis (1554) in Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Genesis, Part I, trans. J. King (Forgotten Books, 1847, 2007), 113.

2. T. F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 117.

3. For more about plate tectonics, check out Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, (New York: Copernicus, 2004).

4. Paul Brand & Philip Yancey, The Gift of Pain: Why we hurt & what we can do about it (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 127.

5. Suffering, and not necessarily pain. Pain is the brain’s reception of the stimulation of pain nerves. Suffering is a psychological state, and can be caused by many things. Pain can be absent in those who suffer, as is the case with leprosy. We should be careful not to collapse these two distinct concepts into one and the same thing.

Filed Under:
theodicy, evolution, problem of evil, death, suffering, pain, creation, God, loving God, physics, nature, theology

Share |

Comments (108)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


  1. merv - #22924

    July 22nd 2010

    Fascinating!  Thanks, Bethany.  I had heard of some of the benefits of tectonics—the rejuvenation of minerals in our soils when volcanic dust settles down.  But it had never occurred to me to think of earth interior energy budget and that 90% of our internal energy generated is used to recycle crust material.  (Does that mean the remaining 10% is steadily contributing to global warming?)

    I have read several of Brand’s books and recommend any of them highly.  He also elaborated on the fact that without feeling and pain, we do not exercise the same mindset of ownership and care over our limbs.  They become “other” to us when we have no feeling in them, and then with no pain we can (and do) ignore apparent signs of damage the same way we choose to ignore or put off responding to a warning light on the dash of our car. 

    —Merv

  2. HornSpiel - #22925

    July 22nd 2010

    Thanks Bethany for tackling this tough subject.

    Pain, predation, death, danger and scarcity are the warp and woof of natural competition. Evolution depends on this competition to further progress.

    Societally speaking, competition is also seen as necessary to furthering progress in the cultural and economic realms, for example in free market capitalism.  As in the natural realm, the evils of competition are necessary for experiencing its benefits.

    Rarely do we question if the the evils of social competition are worth the benefits. Yet when we do, we realize that wars, genocide, misery, and despair sometimes come as a result. To help our children survive in this competitive world we teach and give them natural consequences (pain), to make them more aware of the dangers we all face.

    Somehow I feel God faces the same dilemma.

    Do you think competition will cease in the eschaton?

  3. nedbrek - #22929

    July 22nd 2010

    Thank you for bringing the main issue right to the front.

    I can know the earth is not old, because it leads to an inversion of God’s attributes (“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil”).

    “Pain is a good thing” - Rev 21:4 “neither shall there be any more pain”

    Plate tectonics and pain are necessary for life - as it is now (after the Fall).  That doesn’t mean life in other ways is not possible.

  4. Karl A - #22933

    July 22nd 2010

    Fascinating start, Bethany.  Kudos on your bravery for going “where angels fear to tread”!

    Your portrayal of the gulf between theologians and scientists is interesting.  Are they just speaking completely different languages?  Is there any hope of narrowing the gulf?  I’m sure you’ll have more to say in future posts.

  5. Headless Unicorn Guy - #22934

    July 22nd 2010

    “How could a good God create through a process that involves so much pain and death?”

    Funny how so many who will tell you this will also silence any criticism by invoking “God’s Will”, “God’s Soverignity”, and “Who are you to question What God Hath Done?”

  6. conrad - #22935

    July 22nd 2010

    Plate tectonics is a miracle that keeps dry land above the water level of the oceans.

    It is God’s gift in Day two of the creation account.
    The other thing He gave on those days was self replication molecules.

    Without plate tectonics all the land would erode and settle out as sediment on the ocean floor.
    AND The earth would look like a tube of centrifuged blood.  [air in the top of the tube,... plasma below that and then a layer of white cells and a layer of red cells on the bottom.]
      We would all be under water.

    Yes I think plate tectonics is a great blessing.

  7. conrad - #22936

    July 22nd 2010

    John Calvin’s comment is just plain crazy.
    I am willing to defend the Bible but not every comment by self-styled Christians.
    Many of them make no sense.

  8. Karl A - #22937

    July 22nd 2010

    Your post (quoting an early theologian) makes me wonder what pre-modern scientists thought of these same phenomena.

  9. conrad - #22938

    July 22nd 2010

    Excuse me for being so picky, but why title this piece “evolution”?
     
    Why does ALL science get tagged as “evolution”.

    In the first 4 days of creation week it is all physics and chemistry and geology.
    There is not a living thing in sight.

    Evolution is a theory about modifications in the DNA molecule,...... nothing else.
    Rocks don’t get moved around by evolution.

  10. Bethany Sollereder - #22939

    July 22nd 2010

    Thanks folks!
    HornSpeil, I don’t think competition will continue in the eschaton––but I will talk about that in later posts!  Nedbrek, I wonder if something can be good now, and not good in the eschaton?  For example, in Rev 21 we read that “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp… On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.”  I don’t think that makes night, here and now, a bad thing.
    Karl, we are speaking different languages at the moment, but I hope that further integration will allow us to find more common ground.  There are an encouraging amount of people (many who post on this site!) who are doing wonderful work in closing that gulf.
    Headless Unicorn Guy, I hope to never stop questioning what God has done.  That’s largely how science started in the first place!

  11. nedbrek - #22942

    July 22nd 2010

    Hello Bethany, it all depends by what you mean by “good”.  I believe only God is good (His attributes).  To say that death, pain, and suffering are attributes of God is a very different view of God than orthodox Christianity presents.

  12. penman - #22947

    July 22nd 2010

    Looks like being a thought-provoking series. Blessings on your forthcoming PhD studies in my country.

    On the other hand…

    Calvin has other things to say. For example, commenting on Gen.3:16 & the pains of childbearing, he says: “It is credible that the woman would have brought forth without pain, or at least without such great suffering, if she had stood in her original condition.”

    “Or at least without such great suffering…” So he leaves the door pretty wide open there to some suffering in childbirth prior to the fall.

    Also there are quite a few passages in the early church fathers describing carnivores as the good creations of God (can’t paste them all up, too long). That to me is a crucial point: who designed the carnivores? In a creation-wisdom psalm like 104, they are simply presented as another of God’s admirable creatures.

  13. defensedefumer - #22950

    July 22nd 2010

    It’s a good post, Ms Sollereder and it’s a question I struggle with from time to time.

    I wonder what you think of the statement that without death, there can be no evolution, and therefore death (or evolution) is a way of ensuring the continued survival of humans as a species. To steal a page from Professer Francis Collins, “Evolution is God’s way of giving upgrades.”

    And I guess another big question which I thought you handled well is that is the nature world evil, based on the example of plate teutonics? I guess recognition that we tend to call certain aspects of the natural world evil and good even though everything is natural is a hint towards God. In other words, although nature is normally not regarded having morality, we tend to call earthquakes an evil thing.

    It’s a insightful first post, Ms Sollereder , and I can’t wait for the next one!

  14. merv - #22954

    July 22nd 2010

    We were circled around for prayer before a day of cleanup work after a tornado had come through a town, and one of the wizened leaders relayed to us all the story that he had been told as a youth—I’ll summarize here:  We here in the U.S. midwest do face some severe weather (tornadoes and storms, to be sure), but we also get a lot of much needed rain from these storms.  Some of that ‘God-sent’ rain is what is left of a storm system that may have been a devastating hurricane when it hit the gulf coast.  What was devastating to them delivers nourishment to us.  Therefore we have a responsibility—even an obligation as Christians to share of our received benefit with those who paid a high price for the same. 

    —Merv
    Other examples abound ... the lightening that can kill or start fires also fixes nitrogen in the air thus adding nourishment to rain-water and plants.  Other times we may be on the paying end.  e.g.  we see no good use for mosquitoes, but house wrens seeking tasty nourishment may beg to differ.

  15. JKnott - #22957

    July 22nd 2010

    I applaud the guts shown in tacking this issue.  However, I would have appreciated more discussion of the theological assumptions you begin with.  It seems clear you are basically Augustinian.  That is, you assume that because God the creator is good, the world must also be good.  And even though you acknowledge the reality of the Fall (in some sense) you seem to think it can only have marginal effects.  So you treat the benefits of pain in the context of everything else staying the same; so leprosy is more than just an explanatory example. Not that I can explain everything here in a short post, but just to put it out there, there are non-Augustinian theologies that do not begin from the premise that the world must be good.  The question of whether the world must (at least currently) be good, at least “basically,” given that God the creator is good, is a live one and should not just be skipped over. After all, did not the ground (Hebrew adamah) not itself get cursed because of the sin of the human (adam)? What would it mean to think that the world is corrupted “from the ground up?” And didn’t God go from saying it was “very good” to being sorry he created?  Just some notes to hopefully stimulate someone’s thinking.

  16. HornSpiel - #22962

    July 22nd 2010

    JKnott a few thoughts:

    If one accepts:
    A) The earth and life on it is much older than the advent of adam,
    B)  Death, suffering (if the nervous system allows it), predation, and natural disasters have always affected life (e.g. the fossil record)
    D) God created the world very good.

    Then death, suffering, predation, and natural disasters are part of the very good creation taken as a whole.

    One cannot conclude that they are very good in themselves, it’s a packaged deal.

    Is it possible for adam’s fall to change the very essence of creation from very good to bad?  Otherwise, why is God bothering—-nay suffering—- to redeem it?

    (Curses do not change the essence of a thing. The Bible and the old stories agree:  they are meant to be lifted. )

  17. Tulse - #22969

    July 22nd 2010

    ” I do not want to understate the great human and animal cost associated with earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, but without plate tectonics, there would be no life at all. I would affirm that this world’s plate tectonics are part of God’s very good creation.”

    It’s curious that an omnipotent god could not come up with an arrangement that had the benefits of plate tectonics without all the downsides.  To say that earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis are NECESSARY aspects of plate tectonics seems to remarkably limit the power of the god who supposedly created it.

  18. Justin - #22971

    July 22nd 2010

    All I can say is Cheers, Beth.

  19. T'sinadree - #22973

    July 22nd 2010

    ”...realities like pain, earthquakes, and death are in fact necessary to good and flourishing lives.”

    This statement creates some sticky problems, mostly because of the term “necessary” and the recognition that pain, death, etc. per se are in some sense “evil.” This “runs the risk, in the attempt to justify God’s relationship to natural evil, as portraying the world as thoroughly and necessarily evil. That is, if there is no possible world that God could have created that would have been without evil, then the very existence of matter is thoroughly saturated in and inseperable from evil. If evil is built into nature, however, it is God who put it there.”

    The above quote is taken from page 96 of Stephen H. Webb’s recent _The Dome of Eden: A New Solution to the Problem of Creation and Evolution_. Webb takes both evolution and creation seriously, though he argues against the idea that Darwinian natural selection is the tool God used for the process. It’s a very good book, one which I would highly recommend to anyone looking into this subject.

  20. T'sinadree - #22975

    July 22nd 2010

    Another book I would recommend, one which takes the view that the evolutionary process was necessary, is Christopher Southgate’s _The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil_.

  21. Bethany Sollereder - #22976

    July 22nd 2010

    Wow, some great responses!  I think I will leave a bunch of them alone, since the issues come up in the later posts.  (JNott, Tulse… keep reading!)

    Conrad, I absolutely agree with you that we shouldn’t lump all science into “evolution”.  You make a good point, that I will take due note of in future writings!  However, using the word “evolution” makes rather a punchier title than “Why did God make the world with the natural processes that he did?”  wink

    Penman, thank you for your contribution.  I actually spent a good deal of time looking at the Fathers on carnivores.  I was surprised how many of them actually defend it as part of God’s good creation!  Augustine was my favourite.  When speaking of why predation was necessary, he replied, “The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that this were otherwise would not be reasonable.  For all creatures, as long as they exist, have their own measure, number, and order.  Rightly considered, they are all praiseworthy, and all the changes that occur in them, even when one passes into another, are governed by a hidden plan that rules the beauty of the world and regulates each according to its kind.”

    Justin, Cheers!

  22. R Hampton - #22978

    July 22nd 2010

    why is God bothering—-nay suffering—- to redeem it?

    Only Man has a soul and only Man can act in opposition to God. Consequently, only Man needs redemption.

    Then death, suffering, predation, and natural disasters are part of the very good creation taken as a whole.

    God’s Creation, which can not lie, reveals this to be true. So I don’t see how anyone except a YEC can object. After all, what is the point in being an OEC if you reject the natural disasters (like landslides and volcanoes) that helped shape it, or the extensive evidence of creatures that lived and died millions of years ago?

  23. Gregory - #22980

    July 22nd 2010

    Does this have anything to do with philosophy, the love of wisdom, or is it *ONLY* about science & theology (S&T)?

    Is intercultural studies not also interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary, e.g. following or related to the work of Anglical Canadian philosopher George Grant (1918-1988)?

    Not a grand slight on Bethany, given her ‘western’ Canadian background, but my guess is that she’s never heard of G. Grant until *this moment*. Is it true, Bethany?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Grant_(philosopher)

  24. Gregory - #22983

    July 22nd 2010

    R Hampton,

    You wrote:
    “Only Man has a soul and only Man can act in opposition to God.”

    If I recall correctly (trying to keep my senses and memory open to such things), you are a Roman Catholic Christian. The Roman Catholic church blesses animals ‘as if’ they have souls and/or are created directly by God. I.e. ‘man’s best friend.’ So, wouldn’t you say that ‘animals have souls’ too?

    Gregory

  25. R Hampton - #22988

    July 22nd 2010

    Gregory,

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that; “The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation. As such, animals are no different than inanimate beings - worthy of our respect but not ensouled. The soul is what makes Man in the image of God and separates us from the rest of Creation.

  26. conrad - #22989

    July 22nd 2010

    Well Beth I don’t want to sound like a complete idiot but Darwinian evolution does not account for 5% of creation.

    Remember Darwin never knew what genes were.
    DNA had not been discovered AND NEITHER HAD ANY OTHER CHEMICAL COMPOUND when he was making his suppositions.

    The man was born in 1809 exactly the same day as Abraham Lincoln.

      His predecessor Gregor Mendel had discovered genes while working with red and white sweet peas and postulated the laws of heredity with dominant and recessive genes,..... BUT DARWIN NEVER READ HIS WORK.

    So the big question,... can DNA itself be formed by natural selection NEVER OCCURRED TO DARWIN.
      HE NEVER HEARD OF CHEMICAL BONDS,....OR CHEMICALS.
       
    A lot of what Darwin called speciation we would just call selective breeding. He knew a lot of livestock breeders and communicated with them.
    Scientists have pretty well agreed that DNA could not have been the first self replicating molecule so now they are working on RNA.
    But a lot of astrobiologists say that can’t be done either.
    Chandra “Wicksramasingh is an old colleague of Fred Hoyle’s and he has calculated that it cannot be done accidentally .
    God did it.

  27. conrad - #22991

    July 22nd 2010

    Hey I want to toss this at you!
      One of the classic “stump-the-Christian”  questions is “Where did Cain get his wife? Huh?”

    It became famous during the Scopes “monkey”  trial in 1924 when Clarence Darrow demanded an answer from W. Jennings Bryan.

        Well Spencer Wells has been gathering DNA from all over the world funded by National Geographic and.. surprise! ... surprise!
      The mitochondrial DNA [from the cytoplasm] which is ALWAYS inherited from the mother shows that every living human descends from a single female.
    BUT IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY INDICATE THAT SHE WAS THE ONLY LIVING FEMALE IN HER TIME.
      It just means that no other female living at that time has a female descendant from the matriarchal line.

    Now cain married a local girl, presumably.
    But they had only sons. So the mitochondral DNA from that line died out.
    It passes only through females.
    So if Cain and Sally Rubble had a daughter BUT SHE ONLY HAD SONS,... you get the same result. None of her DNA is extant in today’s population.
    FOR WHATEVER REASON ONLY EVE’S MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SURVIVES IN THE GENE POOL.
      But it does not indicate that Cain married his sister…. [and us old mid-westerners had always felt a bit queasy about that.]

  28. conrad - #22993

    July 22nd 2010

    And….. continuing,...... Sally Rubble may have been the product of evolution.

    The fact that her mitochondrial DNA died out does not mean that her nuclear DNA died out too.

    In fact… in my minds eye,......... I can imagine what Sally may have been like now.  [A little hairy perhaps,......... but a NICE girl!]

    AND A DARN GOOD TREE CLIMBER!

    Ha, ha!
    But seriously folks!...... genetic material from outside Adam and Eve’s genome could easily be in the human race and do no damage to the essential narrative. Perhaps those genes were recessive.
    Eve was presumably Adam’s clone since she was made from his rib,.... [stem cells I presume.

  29. Dunemeister - #23021

    July 22nd 2010

    I don’t think you’ve actually addressed nedbrek’s concerns, Bethany, if you’ll forgive me saying so. Perhaps it’s possible that something is good now but bad later. But perhaps that’s not so. In another blog entry, someone (Enns?) argued that scripture itself is in need of redemption and used Moses’ permission of divorce as a case in point. Jesus said that the law permitted divorce because of Israel’s hard hearts. That is, God permitted what was truly evil as an accommodation of sorts.

    Similarly, God may be permitting plate techtonics and other phenomena, despite the evil that they do, as an accommodation to our present fallen state. That is, all death, including from disease and earthquake, finds its ultimate root in sin. If not, if these things are the way God intended them to be, I’m afraid I have to conclude that this makes God the author of sin. Perhaps there is a theology available to Christians to permit that state of affairs, but it’d be hard to convince me.

    It is this particular hurdle that poses the strongest obstacle to my willingly holding to an evolutionary account of human origins, so I am very happy that you’ve taken the topic on. God bless your ministry.

    Grace and peace,

    Dunemeister

  30. Greg Myers - #23032

    July 23rd 2010

    One of the things we have learned by studying the natural world is that sin, as an explanation for processes like plate techtonics, tornados, debilitating disease and predation, misses the point entirely.  All the pain and suffering noted in the opening post predated humans, and so certainly predates any Fall.  Faced with the problem of evil, some folks looked for supernatural explanations.  Not unlike a child blaming themselves for their parent’s divorce, they blamed themselves (after all, they were the center of their known universe) for the gods’ obvious displeasure. 

    But as with a flat earth and a hard dome of a sky, it turns out that they were wrong.  Tornados are not inevitable- they only occur within a narrow band of landforms and wind patterns.  We don’t require predators in the ecosystem.  They evolved because they could.  Several island ecologies had no large predators, for example.  Likewise, a more smoothly moving system of plates could have been designed - if there were a designer.  True, it would not be the world we live in, but there is no reason such a world could not be.  Pain and suffering are not corruptions of an otherwise good creation, but the simple facts of life as it has come to be on earth.

  31. Karl A - #23035

    July 23rd 2010

    This isn’t the first time theodicy has been discussed on this blog, of course.  (Ah, theodicy is like a bad penny…) I remember some very helpful comments by various people, on one blog posting in particular (http://biologos.org/blog/the-end-of-christianity/).

  32. JKnott - #23037

    July 23rd 2010

    @ HornSpiel - #22962

    You say:
    “If one accepts:
    A) The earth and life on it is much older than the advent of adam,
    B)  Death, suffering (if the nervous system allows it), predation, and natural disasters have always affected life (e.g. the fossil record)
    D) God created the world very good.

    Then death, suffering, predation, and natural disasters are part of the very good creation taken as a whole.”

    Yes.  And I accept A and B (what happened to C?). But I would challenge D.  Why do we take “created very good” literally, but then start fudging on “sorry I created?” In my view, it’s all mythic prehistory. I see no reason why God could not have, with full justice, created the world in its already-fallen state, in order to redeem it. 

    So, when you say:

    “Is it possible for adam’s fall to change the very essence of creation from very good to bad?  Otherwise, why is God bothering—-nay suffering—- to redeem it?”

    It doesn’t really confront my possition.  Adam’s fall was not a historical event.  There was not change from good to bad.  God suffers to redeem b/c He wants to…or am I missing somthing?

  33. JKnott - #23038

    July 23rd 2010

    continuing from above:

    Finally, you say:

    ”(Curses do not change the essence of a thing. The Bible and the old stories agree:  they are meant to be lifted. )”

    I agree with the last part, curses are meant to be lifted.  In fact, I can mean that in a very strict sense: God created the cursed world to lift the curse.  But I don’t know of any reason why I need to accept the first part. How do we know the curse doesn’t change the essence of a thing? After all, the lifting of the curse involved Jesus dying in our place.  Why is death necessary to redeem the curse? It makes sense to me to assume that is because the curse is fundamental, not merely superficial. But I’m open to being proved wrong.

  34. penman - #23040

    July 23rd 2010

    Bethany,
    Yes, that’s a good Augustine quote - various others to the same effect from Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea.

    Hugh Miller tells a story in his “Testimony of the Rocks” about a contemporary (19th century) YEC. The gentleman criticized Isaac Watts for one of his children’s hymns -

    Let dogs delight
    To bark & bite,
    For God hath made them so.

    Incorrect, the gentleman said: dogs became savage only at the Fall. Therefore Watts should have said:

    Let dogs delight
    To bark & bite -
    Satan hath made them so.

    I often get the sense of an underlying Manichaeism in YECism. It’s one reason why I abandoned sympathy for it - especially after seeing the patristic celebration of good, God-designed carnivores.

  35. Dunemeister - #23045

    July 23rd 2010

    @ Greg Myers

    Your response makes perfect sense apart from biblical affirmations that death, suffering, and pain are ultimately the result of the disorder brought on the cosmos by human rebellion against God, and that in the eschaton, God will reverse those effects—no more death, suffering and pain. Scripture describes our present circumstances as corruption and that future state as restoration (or by way of analogy, as resurrection). So it’s simply not open (as far as I can see) to call the present state of affairs as “the simple facts of life.”

    @ JKnott

    “I see no reason why God could not have, with full justice, created the world in its already-fallen state, in order to redeem it.”

    “Adam’s fall was not a historical event.  There was not change from good to bad.  God suffers to redeem b/c He wants to…or am I missing somthing?”

    I think what you’re missing is the cruelty of creating a suffering creation. What would we say of a parent who boiled her newborn child in water until she suffered third degree burns? Would we be inclined to excuse this if she explained “I got pregnant, had the child, and caused her suffering in order to demonstrate my love for her by being the agent of her healing” (or whatever)?

  36. JKnott - #23051

    July 23rd 2010

    Dunemeister—

    I’m trying to hold back my frustration, for I know that even though I’ve heard those arguments again and again (I’m not “missing” them), this may be, in fact probably is, the first time you have made them to me.

    I don’t think God creating this world (the one we see, fallen, with pain, suffering, etc.) rather than first creating a perfect, pain- and suffering- free world that then subsequently got so thoroughly messed up by an event God allowed to happen, is analogous to boiling one’s child in water, or creating an unsafe house to move your children into, or any other such example I’ve been given.

    Here, briefly, is why: I’m positing that God, in an eternal, primal instant, saw this fallen world in need of redemption (in all kinds of ways including the fundamental existence of suffering, but also including people whose hearts are bent toward rebellion toward their creator) and decided to save this world.  That is a noble desire.  But in order to fulfill it, this world had to exist first.  And any necessary preliminary step toward fulfilling a noble desire is good.

    continued…

  37. JKnott - #23052

    July 23rd 2010

    continuing:


    Here is where the arguments for this world not being so bad, even with pain and evils of all sorts, have their place.  For it is arguable that WE (we in particular) would not exist if the world were perfect.  An example I like to use: Since my paternal grandfather met his wife, my grandmother, at an army base during WWII, it is a simple fact that without Adolf Hitler, and the war he started, I would not exist. Evolution only tells us more of the same principle: without death, suffering, murder, rape, and the like, we would not exist.  The difference I see is I can still call these (Hitler included) evils.  It is just that evils are inherent to THIS world, which includes US.  Therefore, God could have created a perfect world, but if he did you or I would not be in it, and therefore we could not be saved.

    The difference between this and the examples I hear as arguments against my position is that these examples assume a situation (1) where there are the elements and people existing first in a safe or good situation, only subsequently to have evil added to the situations, and relatedly (2) they assume a separability between the people and the environment.  My view of God’s creation does neither.

  38. JKnott - #23053

    July 23rd 2010

    Finally, it is really hard for me to see how God creating a world with evils already in it is so impossible to buy, but somehow believing that the act of one man and woman caused all the suffering in history is so obviously better.  I think we’ve been lulled into complaicency on that score because of the history of people just taking this for granted.  And the latter view, by the way, is not so obviously and unanimously biblical as we tend to assume.

  39. Dunemeister - #23057

    July 23rd 2010

    @ JKnott

    You said, “these examples assume a situation (1) where there are the elements and people existing first in a safe or good situation, only subsequently to have evil added to the situations, and relatedly (2) they assume a separability between the people and the environment.  My view of God’s creation does neither.”

    Thank you for holding back your frustration. I only hope that you can believe me when I say that it wasn’t my intention. I used an intentionally graphic example to make my point clear, but I don’t for an instant think that you would excuse the horrible mother I described.

    I agree that the bible’s account of origins is not one of uniform goodness. The garden contained the serpent, and so there is a sense in which creation, right from the get-go, must be acknowledged to have had elements of chaos, deception, destructiveness. Safety and fruitfulness in the garden hinged on Adam and Eve’s faith in/fidelity to God. So to that extent, I agree with you on (1) and your final point. So perhaps my objection boils down to (forgive that verb!) a complaint about the presence of the serpent. Why would God create an otherwise good world yet include a serpent from the get-go? I’ll need to give that further thought.

  40. nedbrek - #23064

    July 23rd 2010

    JKnott: “Finally, it is really hard for me to see how God creating a world with evils already in it is so impossible to buy, but somehow believing that the act of one man and woman caused all the suffering in history is so obviously better. “

    It comes down to the story God is telling through creation.  I believe it is “the overwhelming sinfulness of sin” - sin is so terrible, it required the death of Jesus.  So, yes, it is easy to believe that sin can do a lot of terrible evil.

  41. nedbrek - #23066

    July 23rd 2010

    Dunemeister: “So perhaps my objection boils down to (forgive that verb!) a complaint about the presence of the serpent.”
    The serpent is Satan, created and fallen by his own choice.  Does everyone not agree on that?

  42. JKnott - #23080

    July 23rd 2010

    nedbrek—

    I don’t think the fact that the Serpent is Satan solves the problem.  Why would God let a fallen angel interact with unfallen humans? The point is the same: there was no idyllic time when people had only goodness around them and didn’t have to struggle with evil, lies, unfaithfulness.

  43. nedbrek - #23084

    July 23rd 2010

    “there was no idyllic time when people had only goodness around them and didn’t have to struggle with evil, lies, unfaithfulness.”
    The time between day 6 and the fall of Satan.

  44. JKnott - #23089

    July 23rd 2010

    nedbrek—

    Ok, from a totally wooden literalistic interpretation, that’s arguably true. It’s irrelevant anyway.  Why?  Because it means before the fall of humans, evil was in the world with them. And that means evil was there before humans did anything wrong, and therefore before they could possibly be said to deserve it. Theologically, your literalistic nit-picking gets you nowhere.

  45. nedbrek - #23097

    July 23rd 2010

    Evil, but not suffering.  I don’t think it’s a nit.  We’re talking about the character of God - does He love suffering or not?

  46. JKnott - #23103

    July 23rd 2010

    God’s love is triumphant suffering.  I don’t think anything I’ve said could lead someone to the conclusion that I think suffering is good, which is the same as saying God’ “loves” it.  If you read what I’ve said carefully, you’d know that proving we can think both (1) that suffering is bad, and (2) that God created a world full of it is compatible with the belief that (3) God is good.  So asking “does God love suffering?” is to show a miscomprehension of the context.

  47. nedbrek - #23111

    July 23rd 2010

    I’m not sure why we keep circling around on this: in Genesis 1:21 God says it’s good - that is before the creation/evolution of man.  Is God lying here?

  48. HornSpiel - #23114

    July 23rd 2010

    Hi JKnott,

    Your suggestion of God creating the world in a fallen state is unusual. I have never heard that before. I am not surprised that you get a lot of push back though.

    I think it is important to realize that “very good” does not mean perfect. For instance the classic “It is not good for Man to be alone,” indicates that God continues to improve creation. Also the Snake in the Garden, and Eve and Adam’s vulnerability to temptation, indicate a less than perfect world.

    In the same way, death and suffering are less than perfect circumstances, but are not necessarily contradictory to “very good” if they are necessary for God to achieve his ends.

    So I don’t think you need to say the world was created fallen to account for natural evil.

    Moreover, the central them of the fall is prideful rebellion against God. Death and the Curse are consequences and should not be taken over-literally. Death here is primarily spiritual death as many commentators affirm.

    I say all this because the theological affirmation that Creation is very good is, I think, very important to take literally.

    However, I do not have enough room here (or time) to say why.

  49. HornSpiel - #23116

    July 23rd 2010

    (what happened to C?)

    I removed “C) the fall occurred after adam was created”  but decided it was unnecessary and forgot to renumber.

  50. Deb in BC - #23126

    July 23rd 2010

    Nedbrek: “I’m not sure why we keep circling around on this: in Genesis 1:21 God says it’s good - that is before the creation/evolution of man.  Is God lying here?”

    Good can mean a range of things including morally good (our traditional interpretation of good in Genesis) and functionally good (the creation was good to fulfill God’s intentions and plans for it). John Walton (OT prof, Wheaton) makes a strong case for the latter.

  51. JKnott - #23128

    July 23rd 2010

    nedbrek—

    No.  God is not lying.  I just don’t take the stories literally.  “Very Good” is a description of a wholly hypothetical creation that certainly doesn’t exist now and (in my view) never literally did.  But the story about it has theological truth.  God is creator.  We are in rebellion.  The world is messed up, as measured by a standard of perfection.

    Hornspiel—

    I know “very good” doesn’t nec. mean perfect, but I don’t find much use in emphasizing that point. I know my view is unusual.  Also, I’m not surprized at the pushback either, but I don’t think it really stems from logic or a desire to defend God.  The only logical conclusion is that WE are not good and are radically dependent on grace.  I don’t think I “have” to say the world was created evil to account for natural evil, except (perhaps) to account for it before humans existed, which the evidence seems to suggest. The only other options are (1) deny natural evil is evil or (2) deny the evidence.  Not attractive options for me.

    I’m trying to take with utmost seriousness Paul’s maxim to “know nothing but Christ and him crucified.”  What does that necessitate?  What can we let go and still hold onto that core?  These are my questions.

  52. JKnott - #23129

    July 23rd 2010

    Actually, one could say that there is an option (3): the Fall has retroactive consequences (Dembski?).  I don’t really know what the differences exactly are between that and my view, except to say that my view begins from a different point, namely it admits God COULD have created an already fallen world without being evil himself, whereas the other view seems to remain within Augustinianism but to get around the evidenciary problems. But they are very close.  Actually my view that the world as perfect could not contain us is hardly distinguishable from the view that our (subsequent) evil acts “cause” retroactively the evil world in which they exist.

  53. Deb in BC - #23133

    July 23rd 2010

    I’ve been thinking about a view with a slight shift from yours, JKnott.

    I believe God’s creation as “other” than himself will necessarily be fallen. Therefore, God did not choose to create the world fallen; the fallenness is necessarily included in his decision to create. It was unavoidable.

    In this light, our emphasis on answering “why God allows evil” is misplaced. A better question is why God redeems and restores.

    By implication, then, natural evil as such does not exist. Suffering from natural causes, yes, but natural evil, no. Only moral evil exists.

  54. JKnott - #23137

    July 23rd 2010

    Not sure how that works out, Deb.  I think our theology should start from Christ, esp. on the cross.  That’s goodness in the concrete, particular, exemplar. An event within creation.  It is not mixed with bad qua created, but it does involve evil, as that which it defeats.  Again, Augustinianism is left behind.  Goodness is not the plenitude of being which cannot coexist with evil as “lack,” but rather good is defined as that which defeats evil. I don’t know how we can know what God’s goodness is, and therefore how it can be ruled out within anything created, if I’m understanding your position correctly.  That seems pure speculation.  But as such, probably has potential! wink

  55. Deb in BC - #23144

    July 23rd 2010

    God’s creation was good (meet the purposes for which it was made) and fallen from the get go. Therefore, there is no subsequent fall to account for.

    We absolutely start from Christ, God incarnate, entering a fallen world to be the culmination of all God’s previous redemptive, restorative acts. Even in the story of creation, God communicates that he is the one whose love for even his fallen creation moves him to redeem. Gen.1-11 let us know he seeks covenantal relationships and is the God who seeks, pursues and restores.

    But this is not a denial of a fallen world; emmanuel = GOD with us, entering the fallenness to, as you note, defeat it.

    Thank goodness “Augustinianism is left behind.” wink

  56. nedbrek - #23145

    July 23rd 2010

    JKnott, “The only other options are (1) deny natural evil is evil or (2) deny the evidence.”
    No one denies the evidence (certain fossils are found in certain rock formations).  The question is, can we reliably determine what happened before recorded history?  Are there other explanations for where fossils come from?

  57. JKnott - #23148

    July 23rd 2010

    There are always explanations, nedbrek.  First of all, that’s not my main point, which is whether we can conceptualize a theology which opens us up to being able to accept the deliverences of science without worrying that it will ruin our faith.  The question of what the deliverances of science IS is a subsequent question.  And to that question, there are always explanations; the question is which are reasonable.  Funny, from both left and right I tend to hear pleadings for considering all explanations to be equal (for the bible from the left and for science from the right).  And so far, neither I nor many other Christians (who often have a much better understanding of the scientific issues than I do) have the alternative explanations for the record been generally convincing.  But again, I’m interested here in the theology.

  58. nedbrek - #23149

    July 23rd 2010

    I guess this is for Deb and JKnott: how do you interpret Gen 3:17 except to be as “the Fall” as commonly held for 2000 years?

  59. JKnott - #23152

    July 23rd 2010

    Of course in its ancient context the fall story is like the Greek Pandora story in the sense of an explanation of why the world isn’t perfect. It’s a myth, but a divine one. God reveals to us truths through this story, provided we read it Christocentrically (and more importantly, that God in Christ decides to reveal himself to us through it at a given point in time).  And I see not reason to insist on a literal historical event in which one man and one woman ate a fruit b/c of a talking snake in order to understand that theological content.  I don’t care if all Christians without exception believed that for 5,000 (let alone 2,000) years.  It is relevant only if they believed it for good strong theological reasons I cannot explain away.  In point of fact, for most of that 2,000 years of Church history the scientific evidence for suffering and death before the advent of humans, and long before 6,000 years ago, was simply not known to anyone, believer or non-believer.  So the fact that the earlier Christians did not deal with the evidence they did not have is hardly relevant. And if God is God he can reveal himself to us, just as he did to them, even if we don’t hold to the same exact beliefs about origins.

  60. Deb in BC - #23157

    July 23rd 2010

    Given the historical-cultural context, there is no literal A&E, and no literal fall. To a people suddenly released from 400 years of captivity, about to receive a new law, they needed to know who this God was that had miraculously led them out of Egypt (you don’t cross the Red Sea bed and not have a few questions!), they needed to know what it meant to be human, if not to be servants of the gods, they needed to know what the world was about - that they were made not from warring gods, but intentionally by the one good God - and that they were fallen, that God’s the one who moves to redeem….  Genesis is full of theology accommodated to an ancient cosmological view. Genesis sets the stage for all that follows - it tells us who God is, who we are, what the world and life are about. It has nothing to do with how long the days are and explaining a talking serpent (although, interestingly, Moses chose to represent consummate evil in a way the people would understand, connecting a serpent with Pharaoh’s head-dress). Further, understood in it’s proper context, evolution could all come to naught tomorrow and it would be irrelevant.

  61. Deb in BC - #23159

    July 23rd 2010

    I really don’t see Moses suddenly turning around as they plod along through the dessert and saying, “Now guys, I want to be really clear here - be sure you get this - God made the sun on day 4. OK? Got it? Now that’s really important. OK, let’s keep walking,”

  62. nedbrek - #23164

    July 23rd 2010

    Deb, you believe in the miracles of Moses, but not the miracle of creation?  That a stick can become a snake, but a snake cannot talk?  How do you decide?

  63. Bethany Sollereder - #23169

    July 23rd 2010

    Nedbrek,
    My guess would be Deb would decide the same way you do in all texts––according to genre, context, and literary intention.  Many scholars would agree that Gen 1-11 is a different kind of text than the rest of the Pentateuch.
    Also, I have to wonder about the immediate identification of the serpent with Satan.  I realize this is a time-honoured tradition, and is ensconced in Milton and others.  But if you read Genesis 3, there is no indication that the snake is even evil, let alone “hasatan” (the accuser).  As to where the serpent came from, Gen 3:1 tells us that God himself made it: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.”  So if you insist that the serpent is evil, you make God the author of evil.  If we instead simply take the text, and call the snake “craft” or “shrewd”, we are likely better off.  (‘Crafty’ comes from the Hebrew “arum” which is a play on words, since we’ve just been told that the humans are “arumim”-naked.)  The author of Genesis 3, at least, does not seem interested with the question of where evil comes from.

  64. nedbrek - #23177

    July 23rd 2010

    Bethany, while I agree that Gen 1-11 have differences, I don’t think that can justify tossing them out as fairy tales.

    Perhaps someone could explain why the creation account isn’t closer to reality?  Why doesn’t God say, “you are the cousins of trees, and rocks - you are star stuff!”

  65. Deb in BC - #23180

    July 23rd 2010

    The creation account IS close to reality - the reality of the ancient world the author and hearers were a part of. Telling them they were star stuff was irrelevant to them - never crossed their minds. It crosses OUR minds, and in error, we put on the text 20/21st century questions it was never intended to answer. But THEY had different questions and issues which God fully answers for them, and us. The bible is not a book of science - it is God’s revelation of himself and his purposes for his creation. The message of Genesis 1-11 is theological, is foundational to rightly understanding all the historical narrative, and other genres, that follow.

  66. Bethany Sollereder - #23186

    July 23rd 2010

    Deb, Amen!

  67. RBH - #23224

    July 24th 2010

    As an atheist I watch these kinds of discussions with not a little bemusement and generally keep my mouth shut.  But once in a while I can’t resist a little correction, here of conrad.

    conrad wrote

    Remember Darwin never knew what genes were.

    DNA had not been discovered AND NEITHER HAD ANY OTHER CHEMICAL COMPOUND when he was making his suppositions.  (Caps original)

    Friedrich Wöhler synthesized urea, an organic (carbon-based) compound in 1828, when Darwin was 19 years old.  Here’s a brief timeline of chemistry to help conrad out.

  68. defensedefumer - #23265

    July 24th 2010

    Hi RBH,

    Thanks for the corrections and the links! Despite our differing worldviews on philsophy and religion, I hope you can continue to contribute to the discussions!

  69. Brian in NZ - #23302

    July 24th 2010

    I have always viewed the passages in Gen and Romans about sin causing death to refer to spiritual death, not physical death. In Gen, God refers to two trees, but A&E only eat of one of them. They don’t eat of the Tree of Life. The implication I take from this is that A&E don’t live for ever because they didn’t eat of this tree. Therefore, the story of A&E is not based on the assumption that we are supposed to live without death, and that sin somehow changed that. If anything, sin denied us the option to live for ever (spiritually) by getting A&E banished from the garden.

  70. gingoro - #23308

    July 24th 2010

    Brian in NZ @23302

    Good post.

    “They don’t eat of the Tree of Life.” 

    IMO we do symbolically in communion and it is spiritual life.

    “The implication I take from this is that A&E don’t live for ever because they didn’t eat of this tree.”

    Possibly.  I tend to the view that God grants eternal life to humans selectively and that it is not an innate characteristic. 

    Dave W
    PS do they teach you guys down there to speak and write American as a foreign language course?  smile I had a school friend whose mother was from NZ and father an AUSie.  Unfortunately at boarding school he drowned at about 15 years of age.  It was a huge shock to the rest of us at school away from home and family.

  71. Greg Myers - #23358

    July 24th 2010

    Dunemeister writes

    Your response makes perfect sense apart from biblical affirmations that death, suffering, and pain are ultimately the result of the disorder brought on the cosmos by human rebellion against God

    This is the point - the bible affirms that these things are the result of sin, but it is clear that these things existed - must have existed billions of years prior to any Fall, and further, that these things are the results of natural processes, not any sort of consequence.

  72. John VanZwieten - #23359

    July 24th 2010

    Nedbrek,

    You really should read up on the difference between myth and fairy tale genres, since you consistently confuse them in your posts.  Here’s a quick and easy start for you:

    http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/mythslegends.htm

  73. Miracles God - #23409

    July 25th 2010

    According to the Bible, physical death came by man, but evolution claims man came through death, and one can’t have it both ways. Death is and has always been a curse (Deut. 30:15,19; Ezek. 18:32; John 5:24; Rom. 5:12,17,21; 6:16,21,23; 8:2,6; I Cor. 15:21,26,54-56; Heb. 2:14, James 1:15, Rev. 1:18), but macroevolution, whether theistic or not, requires that God formed man through unimaginable suffering and death. Macroevolution therefore slanders God’s perfectly loving character for man and all the rest of His creation, since it would require God to curse the universe from the beginning. The truth is death has always been a curse, and our loving God has no pleasure in it. It is a bitter enemy as a direct result of spiritual condemnation of man’s sin and not before, and one day this temporary curse will be graciously and permanently removed according to God’s original creative intent (Rev. 20:14, 21:4-5).

  74. Greg Myers - #23421

    July 26th 2010

    Miracles God, yes, this is the problem (and I suppose, the reason for this site).  The bible seems to offer a different explanation for the hows of life on earth than science, and yet there is no doubt that the earth is very old, that live evolved, and that not only are we not the special creation of God, we are not even the point of evolution.  Now what?

  75. Deb in BC - #23422

    July 26th 2010

    Greg -
    I’m not clear on what basis you state “we are not the special creation of God, we are not even the point of evolution.” Could you please explain those more fully.
    Thx.

  76. faith - #23437

    July 26th 2010

    Bethany’s argument is masochism. Suffering is good its the best of all worlds! I wonder what suffering Bethany has experienced to be so indifferent about suffering.

    Pain can be good at times but clearly not in all cases.

  77. penman - #23451

    July 26th 2010

    Greg Myers:

    <<The bible seems to offer a different explanation for the hows of life on earth than science, and yet there is no doubt that the earth is very old, that live evolved, and that not only are we not the special creation of God, we are not even the point of evolution.>>.

    That antithesis would be true if the Bible taught a young earth & denied that life evolved. Some of course think it does teach that. But a lot don’t. I certainly don’t.

    The other statements - “not only are we not the special creation of God, we are not even the point of evolution” - are surely philosophical, not scientific. (Unless “special creation” means “specially created de novo without organic connection to previous life forms”. If I used the phrase, I’d mean that humanity is, like everything else, a divine creation, & has special value or status before God as reflecting His likeness. That says nothing, though, about the mechanisms the Creator used to bring humanity forth.)

  78. penman - #23452

    July 26th 2010

    Faith:

    <<Bethany’s argument is masochism. Suffering is good its the best of all worlds! I wonder what suffering Bethany has experienced to be so indifferent about suffering.>>

    That’s ad hominem. How do we know Bethany is indiffferent about suffering? If we go down that path, any attempt to offer any rationale for any suffering will label the apologist a masochist.

  79. JKnott - #23525

    July 26th 2010

    Faith and penman—

    don’t you guys mean sadism?

    The masochist says, “hurt me!”  The sadist answers, “no!”

  80. Bethany Sollereder - #23572

    July 26th 2010

    Faith,
    Nowhere do I argue that this is the best of all possible worlds.  Nor do I say “suffering is good”.  I said “pain is good”, which is rather a different thing (see footnote 5).
    It was my greatest fear with these posts that I might come across as insensitive and indifferent.  I am truly sorry that that has been the case for you.  This is not the right place to drag up the suffering I have experienced, but I tried to write with sensitivity, and wrote while reflecting on several real and personal experiences of suffering.  If I have offended you, I ask your forgiveness.

  81. Greg Myers - #23606

    July 26th 2010

    Penman writes

    The other statements - “not only are we not the special creation of God, we are not even the point of evolution” - are surely philosophical, not scientific.

    No, evolution is not a process with an endpoint in mind.  There are other creatures on the planet as evolved as we are, or even more evolved (if by that you mean adapted for our environment).  Nothing in evolution suggests that we are the point of the process, or even as far as evolution can take life in some particular direction.  This is in sharp contrast the the origins stories, which clearly place man at the top of the natural world (see Psalm 8 - ruling the animals, just below god, right?).

    You deny a young earth only because science has proved that it is very, very old.  While church fathers and other religious traditions may have allowed for allegorical or non-literal interpretations of Genesis, they also embraced the historicity of the texts.  The way we read the bible has changed dramatically because of the way that science has challenged its claim to contain revealed truth.  Even young-earth creationists deny the biblical notions of a flat earth or hard dome of the sky - you’ve just gone one step further.

  82. Greg Myers - #23613

    July 26th 2010

    Deb in BC, I hope I’ve addressed your question in the response above.  Evolution works with populations of genes.  Variants, as parts of networks of genes appear in a population.  Some of them turn out to assist the individuals carry a particular variant in reproducing.  Over time, those individuals reproduce more, and the genes they carry become more prominent in the population.  This is a non-deterministic process, and depends of the environment.  A classic example is sickle-cell anemia, which provides resistance to malaria, but also causes fatigue, organ damage and death.  The resistance to malaria results in reproductive advantage, even it an individual’s life after reproduction is shorter.  No one designed sickle cell - it was a mutation that happened to interfere with the malarial parasite, and so was passed on, even though it has serious downsides.

    The Genesis stories speak of a very intimate creation involving the hands and breath of God, while science speaks of a long, meandering, desperate struggle, full of pain and loss.  Hominids developed culture - burial, art, community, religion over tens of thousands of years, over a vast expanse of territory - long before a Semitic tribe began to worship a god named Yahweh.

  83. penman - #23632

    July 27th 2010

    Greg Myers:
    <<evolution is not a process with an endpoint in mind… Nothing in evolution suggests that we are the point of the process>>

    I still think the first of these is a philosophical statement. If a Creator exists, & evolution is His mechanism for producing biodiversity, then it is quite possible for us humans to be the endpoint He had in mind. He may have “set things up” to eventuate in us.

    Your second statement, though, may well be justified. In other words, if we look exclusively at evolution, void of all other considerations, then yes, maybe it doesn’t suggest that we are the goal.

    Christian thought has long recognised this in another guise - the doctrine of providence. If we look exclusively at “what happens” in human life, we won’t arrive at any doctrine of a wise & loving providence watching over us - unless we are very selective, & count only the good things. I think it was C.S.Lewis who said that the religious mind believes in providence, not on the basis of analyzing our experience, but on the basis of divine revelation. So it then becomes an argument about whether we have such a revelation.

    But I can agree with your second statement as it stands. (Break out the bottles…!)

  84. penman - #23633

    July 27th 2010

    Greg Myers again:

    <<You deny a young earth only because science has proved that it is very, very old… The way we read the bible has changed dramatically because of the way that science has challenged its claim to contain revealed truth.  Even young-earth creationists deny the biblical notions of a flat earth or hard dome of the sky - you’ve just gone one step further.>>

    Actually I agree with this. If I all I had was the Bible, I should be agnostic on the age of the earth, because I don’t think the Bible addresses it. The reason I hold to an old earth is - yes - because I’ve got some knowledge of geology. I don’t see that as contradicting the Bible: merely settling an issue not dealt with in the Bible.

    And yes, I think there’s a cosmological picture in the Bible of the earth resting on pillars, a solid dome, et al. But on this matter, since I don’t think the Bible was given to teach us science (Galileo: how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go), that doesn’t greatly perturb me. I accept it’s an instance of “accommodated language”, like God portraying Himself as having eyes, hands, feathers, etc.

    My interpretive tradition does have roots in the early church fathers here: scarcely any of them held a flat earth.

  85. penman - #23634

    July 27th 2010

    JKnott:

    <<Faith and penman—don’t you guys mean sadism?>>

    A moot point. I assumed Bethany was including herself as part of the suffering creation, so that her theodicy of suffering would embrace her own. That’d be (to a malicious critic) masochism. However -

    <<The masochist says, “hurt me!”  The sadist answers, “no!”>>

    Good one!

    Since that’s my third post (this is unheard of), I’m retiring to do something easy like prepare a sermon.

  86. Mr Pogle - #23683

    July 27th 2010

    Why did god not create plate tectonics with all the listed benefits but without the earthquakes?

  87. Bethany Sollereder - #23693

    July 27th 2010

    Mr. Pogle,

    I’m not sure anyone can answer that.  Some say that it would be impossible.  We could imagine it, but it can’t actually be done “in the real world.”  I don’t think we know enough to be able to prove something like this.  Others would argue that there is benefit in the suffering that earthquakes bring: they arouse compassion and move people to aid.
    I don’t think either of these are particularly good answers, though there might be truth to both of them.  I think the question “Why didn’t God create a different kind of world?” is unanswerable.  I would rather discuss “Why might God have created this world the way he did?”  We still don’t have a great shot at answering this, but it seems a little more possible to answer than the first question.  The fact is, God did create this world, and not another.  That, and God’s true goodness (as revealed in Scripture), are the only things we have to go on.  From there, we make what speculations we can, though they are not usually completely satisfactory.

  88. Mr Pogle - #23700

    July 27th 2010

    Bethany Sollereder

    You’re right, neither are good answers. After all, how can it be impossible? Is not god omnipotent?

  89. Bethany Sollereder - #23702

    July 27th 2010

    Mr. Pogle,

    Well, there are different kinds of omnipotences.  It would depend on whether God can do the logically impossible or not.  Can God create a round square?  If you answer “yes”, then perhaps he could create a world with the benefits and without the drawbacks.  I would answer “no”, just as I don’t think God could make a rock so big he can’t lift it.  These are problems of logic, not omnipotence.  Also, there are other things that God cannot do, even though he is omnipotent.  He cannot lie, and cannot be false to himself.  He cannot do evil.  These are not denials of God’s omnipotence.  My guess is that the plate tectonic/earthquake problem fits into this category.  God, wanting some values in the creation, could not create that ideal world we can imagine.

  90. Greg Myers - #23886

    July 29th 2010

    There is no logical problem involved in creating alternatives to horrors like earthquakes and tornados- especially if the earth only has to exist for the eyeblink (in geological time) humans will be around. In fact, both the earth and the universe are ridiculously overbuilt if we are its purpose, as Genesis suggests The idea that pain is a logical requirement of life is no more established than the idea that death is a requirement of life.

    I find no evidence that the historical nature of the creation story, flood, etc was denied by the church fathers. Rather, they also adopted allegorical and / or metaphorical interpretations that supplemented the historical view. The modern scientific view of the world cannot be overlaid on the text without resorting to wholesale rebranding of what is presented as factual as metaphor (a rebranding not based on the text,  but solely on what we have learned a out the world). What remains is useful, but now lacks the kind of real world veracity that demands fidelity. Rather, we have a literary work, encoding some of humanities best thinking, much of which we now reject as either factually or ethically wrong.

  91. Robert - #24115

    July 30th 2010

    No one here has seemed to consider that there was another fall before A&E’s, that is the fall of Satan and his angels.

    I think we should be at least open to the possibility that some of the “bad” attributes of God’s created-good creation may be the result of that fall, and the spiritual war that followed.

  92. gingoro - #24120

    July 30th 2010

    Robert@24115

    “I think we should be at least open to the possibility that some of the “bad” attributes of God’s created-good creation may be the result of that fall, and the spiritual war that followed.”

    I agree but find that we are given very few details on this earlier rebellion and so making theology upon what little we have seems problematic, but yes that possibly earlier sin may have damaged the early earth prior to mankind coming on the scene.  Off the top of my head I can’t think of any scripture that definitely places the fall of Satan prior to creation of the universe.  In order to justify some point of theology I always want multiple places in scripture to support that point to help ensure that we are interpreting scripture properly.
    Dave W

  93. nedbrek - #24121

    July 30th 2010

    Hello Robert, I do not believe Satan’s fall had any effect on creation.  That is because dominion over creation was intended for Adam - only Adam’s fall could affect it.

  94. GeraldR - #24320

    August 2nd 2010

    As some have already commented, the whole problem of death, pain and suffering before the fall goes away if one accepts a young earth viewpoint. 
    So does all the pain of wondering about the “Adam of Paul” and a whole host of other ailments that spring up because of not taking genesis 1 literally.

    So why would one want to accept an atheistic viewpoint [evolution and Darwinism] and then try to reconcile the bible to it? This part I find really hard to understand. Perhaps someone could enlighten me why they believe in evolution when the bible simply states that God created things in a fully functional and seemingly mature form?  Who is the authority on the creation of the earth? God’s word or the science of man? Is someone going to tell me I’m not reading correctly when I read that everything was created in six days?  How did I go wrong?

  95. penman - #24412

    August 3rd 2010

    GeraldR: I’ll have a stab at answering your question. In my opinion… It boils down to different approaches to interpreting the Bible. Few, if anyone at all (I’d guess), would think the earth only a few thousand years old on geological evidence, unless they’d already decided that’s what the Bible says. Then they let this interpretation of Genesis “trump” geology. Same for origins of biodiversity.

    I think it’s better to admit that fallible humans are trying to understand both the Bible & the natural world - fallible exegetes, fallible scientists. If our understanding of Bible & world don’t align, we should ask which we’re most likely to have misread.

    For myself, I’m more certain that I’m right in interpreting geology & biology in an old earth evolutionary way, than that I’d be right to interpret the Bible in a Young Earth Creationist way. Science speaks more clearly here. The Bible is reasonably open to other exegetically viable interpretations, which take the Bible just as seriously as a YEC view - interpretations that have a firm place within Christian tradition. E.g. I take a framework view of Genesis 1; its roots are in Augustine, who wasn’t trying to accommodate modern science, since he lived 1500 years ago!

  96. JMFK - #24885

    August 7th 2010

    GeraldR @ #24320: You wrote, “the whole problem of death, pain and suffering before the fall goes away if one accepts a young earth viewpoint.”

    The problem also goes away if one understands that Western Christendom’s expectation that God’s pre-fall material creation would be perfect does not originate from the Bible, but from the pagan philosophies of Plato. The Hebrew writers of the OT did not have a problem with ascribing the non-ideal aspects of nature to Yahweh’s activity within his creation. In fact, it elicited their worship. This included tectonics, storms, predation, and death in the animal kingdom:

    “May the Lord rejoice in his works - who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke” - Psalm 104:31-32
    “Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command.” - Psalm 148:7-8
    “The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.” Psalm 104:21
    “O Lord, how manifold are your works…the earth is full of your creatures…When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.” Psalm 104:24-30

    Also Job 38-41; Psalm 104 in full.

  97. JMFK - #25123

    August 8th 2010

    Hornspiel @ 22925: You asked, “Do you think competition will cease in the eschaton?”

    Whether it will cease in nature apart from humankind I cannot say. For a resurrected and glorified human race, I expect that the only type of competition would be of the friendly sort. Our own culture is obsessed with competitiveness because, apart from simple survival or ego, we see competition as a creative force in human society. I have known Christians who have advocated unrestricted capitalistic competition for this reason while at the same time rejecting evolution, They believe in Social Darwinism but not Biological Darwinism, i.e., they get their science from the Bible and their ethics from nature - kinda backwards IMO.

    However, the Bible sees human beings as God’s creative force in the world. Competition is simply one possible motivator of creativity. Others are love, compassion, curiosity, and others that are seen in a more positive light. As for competition, the Bible has this to say:

    “And I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor. This too is vanity and striving after wind.” - Ecc. 4:4

  98. Trevor K. - #25197

    August 10th 2010

    I would like to suggest that those who have ONLY been steeped in evolutionary thought to take a look at creation.com for another point of view of things. You could also explore answersingenesis.com if you haven’t done so yet.

    It’ll really ease your burden of trying to reconcile the bible to the “facts” of evolution [ because you treat it as if the Darwinian theory of evolution is the authority on the creation of the earth, instead of the bible being the last word on that issue].

    Happy hunting to those who have the courage and humility to do so.

  99. Thomas Bouvier - #25791

    August 16th 2010

    I must say that one rarely finds a theologian who sees the problem of evil and proposes a theodicy which basically says that evil is really good.  The problem of evil in a few words proposes that a good and all-loving god is not consistent with the evil and suffering in this world. The free will argument is not compelling and really can only be applied to choices the individual makes.  The problem really is about all the natural disasters.  Pointing to how there is always a silver lining or trying to see why something terrible that destroys many thousands of lives is really good is circular reasoning at best. 
    You make the error of appeal to anonymous authority.  Who are those scientists who “have looked at these same natural phenomena, and have come to the conclusion that realities like pain, earthquakes, and death are in fact necessary to good and flourishing lives?”  I really cannot recall any scientist coming forward after Katrina and saying it was necessary for a good life.  All I can recall was a prominent christian minister proclaiming that it was God’s will because of homosexuals and abortion, etc.

  100. Thomas Bouvier - #25793

    August 16th 2010

    Your choice of which theologians to rely on as authorities is interesting.  Calvin, of Protestant Reformation fame, was a proponent of total depravity and predestination, essentially denying human free will.  His point of view was that everything was due to man’s sin and God had the final say, nothing anyone can do. Torrance is a calvinist known as a member of the “classical christianity ” school. 
    I can see how you have been influenced by their orientation toward the suffering of humanity. But I think you tend more toward Irenaeus than Augustine.
    As far as referring to evolution.  I just don’t see it. Not in this article.  Other comments flesh this out so I will skip it.  We will see.
    It takes time to read the article, reflect on it, read other comments, before commenting myself.

  101. Thomas B - #25797

    August 16th 2010

    T’sinadree - #22973
    If you want to read a really good book about religion and evolution I highly recommend Miller:Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution ISBN 0-06-093049-7
    His other book is also excellent Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul ISBN 978-0670018833

    Miller is a prominent scientist and a practicing and committed christian.

  102. Thomas B - #25799

    August 16th 2010

    Bethany
    “I hope to never stop questioning what God has done.  That’s largely how science started in the first place!”
    That is a strange concept and belies your biases.  Science does not “question” anything God does. Looking for answers to why things are the way they are is what humans have always done.  If that is your true view of science then why are you writing these things?  Especially at the BioLogos Foundation which maintains that it “explores, promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.”
    You will need to demonstrate that this bias against science can be overcome.

  103. Thomas B - #25801

    August 16th 2010

    So conrad - #22989 you are criticizing Darwin because he did not refer to work he had not read?? Mendel wrote in 1865 and 1866 but these works weren’t much read untill about 1900. And even then not much accepted.  Don’t you find that a bit harsh?  Don’t you also think it pretty amazing that discoveries AFTER his works only go to prove his ideas? It was a hundred years after Darwin that the process of DNA replication was discovered. Every bit of science in the past 150 years has only reinforced Natural Selection. Yes, work in RNA is proceeding.  The science is a bit “heady”, it involves proteins and enzymes, complicated organic chemical bonding, the intricate biological working on the cellular level.

  104. Thomas B - #25802

    August 16th 2010

    Robert - #24115 & 

    gingoro - #24120

    Perhaps you aren’t aware that your ideas here are a reflection of Augustine of Hippo. He adopts what can only be called a Manichean dualistic approach. The evil which we might call “natural” he considers to be caused by the fallen angels. Personal evil (the stuff we do) is caused by the “fall”.

  105. Thomas B - #25804

    August 16th 2010

    Trevor K. - #25197
    Those are interesting creationist sites.  There is no science to be found there, of course. And the religious views resonate with a very very small proportion of christianity, not to mention the whole world. 
    I would recommend http://pandasthumb.org/ for a view of the truth. If you dare

  106. Thomas B - #25808

    August 16th 2010

    Gregory - #22983
    WOW Greg man you do put a lot of stuff in few words.  Are you suggesting that because someone blesses something it therefore has a soul? Or that animals etc. don’t have souls and therefore shouldn’t be blessed? What does the “man’s best friend” mean? Is that a problem because dogs are not mentioned in the bible?

  107. Thomas B - #25818

    August 16th 2010

    Greg Myers - #23032
    Some good points there.  We are in the world we are in.  Despite the fact that some people look at the anthropic principle and declare that therefore we must have a god, we must look at the story behind the propositions.
    Humans need to understand our place in the world.  We need to have meaning.  For many thousands of years that is what we have been doing.  So many of the posters here demonstrate that so very strongly.  As we have found more answers to basic questions, people have felt that need more strongly.  There was a time when lightening had to come from the gods.  The Tanakh gives the answers to basic questions like where did this all come from? where did we come from? Why? But those were the answers from a nomadic tribe of herders, thousands of years ago. Why do people cling so firmly to such mythology?  Some christians debate young earth versus old earth!!  And at the other end of the time line: the final days.  Now there is a source for reasonable discussion!! It is all a search for personal and perhaps communal meaning. Each new factual understanding of our universe cause them to try to reconcile their ancient texts with facts.  Failing that, they deny the facts.

  108. Thomas B - #27666

    August 31st 2010

    ”... Paul entwines together spiritual and physical death? Both in the ancient world are seen as evil, as opposed to the will of God and against the flourishing of His creatures. “
    I assume that by “ancient world” you refer to the Graeco-Roman world view.  Do you think that “worldviews and cultural assumptions must also be translated.” The ancient world did not have the same view of evil or death that many do now.  Most of your statements would not mean much to the ancient Roman or Greek, at least not as you interpret those words.  Indeed the whole concept of sin as put forward by most christians is not consonant even with the Tanakh.  In fact it wasn’t until the inter-testamental times that a theory of the afterlife was even considered by the Hebrews. The Greeks had a whole different view of death, check out Homer.  The Romans, too. Read Cicero.


    “It is clear that death was present in the world long before human sin, indeed, death has been present as long as life.”
    How would you demonstrate the truth of that statement?  Following your story line, I guess animals might have died in the garden before the whole snake thing.  But I kinda thought that that was the point of that story.  Sin brought death into the world.

    • Add Your Comment

    • Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

    • You have 1250 characters remaining.