The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
This thread is a response to those Christians who think that natural evolution is an intrinsically evil process and that therefore Christians must reject the theory in principle.

So far as evolution producing too much waste, that’s a subjective opinion. The truth can only be determined by understanding the purpose of a process which in turn can only be understood in terms of it’s ultimate existential end. So i won’t be getting into that debate. Ultimately i think evolution as a system is a good way of distributing potential forms without prejudice, with only physical laws as a limitation. So it stands to reason that there might be what we would consider to be errors or waste.

Nobody wants pain and suffering, but regardless of whether evolution is true or not, the existence of pain and suffering is a philosophical problem called the problem of natural evil. Like the problem of personal evil, it basically argues that there is great difficulty in making sense of God’s good nature when his creation is full of suffering.

It’s sufficive to say that i don’t think natural evolution makes any difference to the problem. Creatures live and die and suffer regardless. God gave us the capacity for pain and emotions and they are an intrinsic part of our nature regardless of Darwin. If God can see some greater good that we would be without if it were not for the potential of suffering and pain, then what does it matter that suffering exists - by any process at all - if it is logically necessary for our salvation or God’s plan to save us? The goal is the good of our existence. If the potential for suffering is necessary in order for us to have what God wants for us, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
There are many creatures that seem to have a design for eating other creatures. What about the vampire bat? What about teeth in general? Great white sharks seem to be made for predatory activity. So, if they ate seaweed at some point, then their teeth must have changed, I think. If their mouth can change that much, then the whole body can change a lot too. I don’t know for sure, but evolution seems very likely or God created the shark as it is. Either way, I suppose it must be good if God made it, unless animals can evolve into evil creatures that God dislikes. I kind of doubt it though. Who knows what God thinks about them?
 
What about the vampire bat? What about teeth in general? Great white sharks seem to be made for predatory activity.
As organisms have grown more complex over time, I think things like teeth have evolved out of the need to absorb energy.

In this regard i see goal direction in nature, but it operates within a natural process and is not determined directly by an intelligence. It’s my reasonable opinion that God intended for potential forms to be distributed without limitation or manipulation other than what is imposed upon them by their inherent natures; that forms should develop naturally for the sake of variety and God does not out of prejudice determine which forms should exist and what forms should not. From this perspective it stands to reason that some ghastly and violent creatures would exist in God’s creation.

It makes sense of what we see, and it makes better sense than blaming it all on Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
Don’t forget that evolution allows the strongest to survive while the weak ones die.
 
True. In a purely physical biological sense, weak organisms (defined by their ability to survive and pass on their genetic information) is not kept in the gene pool.
 
Last edited:
In this regard i see goal direction in nature, but it operates within a natural process and is not determined directly by an intelligence. It’s my reasonable opinion that God intended for potential forms to be distributed without limitation or manipulation other than what is imposed upon them by their inherent natures; that forms should develop naturally for the sake of variety and God does not out of prejudice determine which forms should exist and what forms should not. From this perspective it stands to reason that some ghastly and violent creatures would exist in God’s creation.

It makes sense of what we see.
Is that like the “watch maker” theory? He made the natural world but lets it run on its own according to the natural law? I suppose if he did intervene and control everything, we would have to say natural law was supernatural law. Would there be any relevance in using the term ‘natural’ if the world was governed directly by God?
 
I believe Evolution is part of the deception God has given to unbelievers and through many forms of brain washing has duped Christians also.
If God used evolution to create life why was it that he could not find a mate for Adam when he was created? right there was no woman yet made, so we know Adam when he was 130 years old had seth and he lived for what was it 950 years ?
Adam was 66 generations from Christ therefor Adam lived around 6000 years ago . So we know around 6000 years ago there was no woman on earth.
and as for them sharks


[Isaiah 11:6–9] Tells us God will restore his creation and the Lion will lie down with the lamb.
Not to mention all those fossils with blood still present or them fossils we were told were 100’s of millions of years old and what do you know we find them still alive and looking like they did 100’s of million of years ago.

I don’t go for the pre flood story of animals not being carnivores though as Cain and Able before the birth of Seth were farmers of animals and vegetables.
 
we would have to say natural law was supernatural law.
The law is supernaturally determined by God. You could argue that the law is supernatural in a sense, but i would be careful in how you define it.
Would there be any relevance in using the term ‘natural’ if the world
In the context of science when we speak about natural laws we are merely saying that things behave according to their particular natures. There is a rule like nature about the way created things behave. In the context of metaphysics i would argue that ultimately God determines the powers or capacities that created natures have.
 
Last edited:
Is that like the “watch maker” theory?
The inner workings of a watch follows a predetermined path for an intelligent end, that’s why people say a watch is intelligently designed. Paley argued that the universe is like this, but modern science has revealed something that does not entirely conform to the watchmaker analogy.

Physical reality, while having some deterministic elements, has chance and randomness in it’s system. In that sense i would say the universe is a blind-watchmaker (ironically coined by Richard Darwkins), and that God provided the parts including it’s existence. The system is still intelligently designed because there is still evidence of goal direction in the effects that it produces (which implies intelligent information), but not like in the first example.
 
Last edited:
why was it that he could not find a mate for Adam when he was created? right there was no woman yet made, so we know Adam when he was 130 years old had seth and he lived for what was it 950 years ?
Adam was 66 generations from Christ therefor Adam lived around 6000 years ago . So we know around 6000 years ago there was no woman on earth.
Uh, have you considered the possibility that these dates are not to be taken literally? 😱
 
Uh, have you considered the possibility that these dates are not to be taken literally? 😱
Who said they are not to be taken literally? was it the lecturer at college when he was selling you evolution? where do you get this impression from? Mathew and Luke took them literally that’s good enough for me.
 
Don’t forget that evolution allows the strongest to survive while the weak ones die.
Not exactly. Animals that are better adapted to their surroundings survive longer and produce more offspring, while animals that are less well-adapted lose numbers. Think of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event: dinosaurs died off, while small mammals survived and multiplied.
 
Last edited:
No that’s true all they had was the word of God and they weren’t to know that rocks followed by single cells, followed by sponges followed by fish followed by some sort of land mammal followed by an ape where all wonderfully created in the Image and likeness of God
that’s what evolution says, But I am fearfully and wonderfully made and known to God before he knitted me in the womb of my mother.
Radiometric dating has many flaws and that’s a fact known to everyone.
And what about that woman that just couldn’t be found any where for Adam, where were all the woman?
 
Not a college lecturer! Perish the thought! They’re all lesbians and ethnics!

To be less sarcastic, no, there are plenty of theologians, some of them quite prominent and dating from the early church, were open to the idea that Genesis is allegorical.

You can put your hands over your ears and shout “no!” all you want, it doesn’t matter to me. But it’s a profoundly silly hill to die on.
 
Last edited:
Then how do you come to think the word of God is not literal, or at least the parts that clash with pseudo science.

I had a lecturer try to fail me in college because he was spouting crap about the Church and I pulled him on it, He went red in the face shouted at me that I better prove it, I stood up and told him he better wind his neck in or I would teach how to have respect for a person, needless to say I proved him wrong and he tried to fail me, so i know Colleges etc have no interest in truth.
Just thought I would share that with you.
 
I’m sorry you must be mistaken, I am all about the truth, with no agenda to drive it, simply explain to me why Adam could not find a wife and a name of any person living before Adam and I will be satisfied.
Rocks and sponges don’t count nor do make believe people that science tells us are sub human species because really we know they are not.
 
I’m sorry you must be mistaken, I am all about the truth, with no agenda to drive it, simply explain to me why Adam could not find a wife and a name of any person living before Adam and I will be satisfied.
I think boomboom just made your question irrelevant. Only those who take genesis literally our going to have those kinds of question. Those were the kind of questions i asked when i first entered the faith because i mistakenly thought that was what Catholicism demanded of me. Those were the days.

So, if you choose to take it literally then it follows that you do have an agenda of sorts and that is precisely why you think evolution is a threat.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top