The Problem of DARWIN'S EVIL

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the definition I have found, even if there were multiple “bubbles” (multiple universes) so to speak, they would all still be the universe collectively.
 
IWantGod said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is the food chain that God created to support life on Earth evil ?
 
angel12 said:
Physicists don’t think so.
Click to expand...
I’m going to break the cardinal rule of not commenting until X-Mas. But I must interject that people with a background in physics believe in a lot of crazy things. For instance, I believe in crazy things like God creating the sun, planets and stars on the 4th literal day of Creation, but then I only have a bachelor’s degree in physics. More to the point, there are real physicists out there (in contrast with a scientific doofus like me), that believe crazy things that the saints, prophets and apostles taught about the world being created only a few thousand years ago (contra the far more fashionable pagan teachings of their day).

Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University and taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for over 26 years. Here are his thoughts on the mystical multiverse:
Scientists today increasingly talk and write about the multiverse. What is the multiverse? The multiverse is the belief that our universe is just one of many universes. Presumably, each universe exists parallel to and independent of one another. If this sounds like science fiction, philosophy, or religion, it is, because the multiverse could be classified in any one of those categories. Whatever the multiverse is, it definitely is not science. How can the multiverse be scientific (given that science is the study of the natural world using our five senses) when other universes, by definition, are beyond our ability to detect? If the multiverse is not science, why do so many scientists believe in it? The reasons have nothing to do with science but instead are the result of presuppositions and worldview.

…belief in the multiverse is a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of design even when design is staring us in the face. Arguments for the multiverse often are couched in pseudoscientific terms to make it sound scientific (for instance, one of the first popular-level books on the subject was the 1997 book Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others by the famous British astrophysicist Martin Rees); but, again, there is no science here. Rather, it is at best a philosophical argument. Or, even better, it amounts to a religious argument. How can this be, given that most believers in the multiverse are atheists? Belief in the Creator God of the Bible obviously is religious. However, if one constructs an untestable concept to avoid belief in the Creator God, then that amounts to a religious statement as well.
Click to expand...
answersingenesis.org

Multiverse: Is Our Universe One of Many?

Scientists increasingly talk and write about the multiverse. What is the multiverse? The multiverse is the belief that our universe is just one of many.
answersingenesis.org answersingenesis.org
 
p.s. As an aside, I actually depart from most of my fellow religious fanatics at Answers in Genesis, and similar bat crazy organizations on the question of a 6000 year old earth. I believe there is more grounds for the earth being 7600 years per the more ancient Hebrew manuscripts that the LXX translation apparently relied on. However, to avoid needless squabbles over the exact date of Creation, I’ll simply say that any straightforward interpretation of the Scripture (you know, the interpretation that the saints, prophets and apostles used) demands a date of less than 10,000 years old. Of course, notwithstanding the majority position of the historic Church on a literal seven day creation, good ol’ St. Augustine–young earth extremist that he was–had to make the earth even younger by squeezing the first seven days into one day. I admire his young earth enthusiasm, even if I disagree with his ultimate conclusion.
 
So, you don’t believe that God created other Universes?

I’ve never seen how that theory is avoiding God. It’s quite probable that we are one of many bubbles that God has created. I don’t see any issues here.
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe that He couldn’t create another universe (we know that there is at least a “spiritual universe” of sorts, that is, the Heavenly realm). However, I believe it is apparent that the driving force behind the non-scientific notion of a multiverse is avoidance of a God bigger than the secular brain.
 
My wife says I’m doing the dishes for the next month if I type another word, so I guess I’m off to more responsible actions for the remaining days of November. Farewell my Buddhist, Agnostic, Warlock, Unarian and Theistic Evolutionary friends. But, while you feast upon your highly evolved feathered dinosaur/turkey at Thanksgiving, remember the selfless amoeba-like creatures that made this meal possible (by being kind enough to mutate via cosmic rays, etc. into turkeys, people and sweet potatoes).
 
Last edited:
p.s. My wife is preoccupied, so I couldn’t help but take one last potshot at those whose positions differ from my own 🙂

Here’s one of the more hilarious statements that I’ve come across from Britain’s leading funny man, Richard Dawkins.

Blind Watchmaker, page 240:

"Suddenly the fossils that we find as we move up through
the strata of the main landmass change. Previously they were all of the
ancestral species. Now, abruptly and without visible transitions,
fossils of the new species appear, and fossils of the old species dis-
appear.

The ‘gaps’, far from being annoying imperfections or awkward
embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively
expect, if we take seriously our orthodox neo-Darwinian theory of
speciation. The reason the ‘transition’ from ancestral species to de-
scendant species appears to be abrupt and jerky is simply that, when
we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not
looking at an evolutionary event at all: we are looking at a migrational
event, the arrival of a new species from another geographical area.
Certainly there were evolutionary events, and one species really did
evolve, probably gradually, from another. But in order to see the
evolutionary transition documented in the fossils we should have to
dig elsewhere - in this case on the other side of the mountains."[End Quote]

Why didn’t we think about this before?!!..If we just started digging on the other side of the mountain we’d find where all those missing transitional fossils migrated.

Richard Dawkins continues…

"Darwinians had always been bothered by the apparent gappiness of the
fossil record, and had seemed forced to resort to special pleading about
imperfect evidence. Darwin himself had written:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large
extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting
together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated
steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will
rightly reject my whole theory.

Eldredge and Gould could have made this their main message: Don’t
worry Darwin, even if the fossil record were perfect you shouldn’t
expect to see a finely graduated progression if you only dig in one place,
for the simple reason that most of the evolutionary change took place
somewhere else!"[End Quote]

Silly Stephen Gould, he just thought that evolution happened too fast to provide the transitional fossil record predicted by neo-Darwinism (while simultaneously proving that for the dedicated evolutionist, even a lack of evidence for microbes mutating into complex lifeforms could be used as evidence for evolutionism–aka Punctuated Equilibrium).

Richard Dawkins knows better (because he has an even bigger brain)–just dig on the other side of the mountain you silly paleontologists.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
No apparent at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks angel12, I may have been too sweeping in my assertion. However, there are many scientists (and non-scientists) who appear to be pushing it in the hope it can act as a rescue device for naturalistic origin myths that contradict what we observe in the real universe.
 
Last edited:
p.p.s. In all seriousness, I possibly lean too far towards Elijah’s “mock the goofy Baal worshipers” approach when dealing with a government enforced mythology like evolutionism. However, despite Richard Dawkins’ awe-inspiring faith in things that don’t happen, he is a fellow bearer of God’s image, and as such he likely is in greater need of my prayers than my jests (though I’m sure he could care less about the incoherent grunts of a pea-brained primitive like me).

The fact is, for all I know I’m the far greater sinner (and I’m definitely dumber). The greatest advantage tinfoil hat YEC folks have in this great debate is the blessing of standing through undeserved mercy on the high mountain of revealed truth provided in Scripture and on the shoulder of the giants in the Church who faithfully interpreted Scripture to mean what it says and say what it means.

Thankfully, my wife didn’t seem to notice this aberration in my otherwise saintly refraining from posting…I may not be so lucky next time…That’s enough from this Protestant (but RC brethren loving) Bible-thumper. Have a great November everyone
 
Last edited:
Becuase the universe, by definition, is the totality of God’s material creation.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Becuase the universe, by definition, is the totality of God’s material creation.
Click to expand...
That’s not a logical problem, that’s a semantic problem.

People thought that our visible universe was all there was and so they defined it that way. And why wouldn’t that be subject to redefinition if there happened to be other separate universes? Another way of describing a multiverse is to say that there are multiple distinct islands of space-time.

To argue that your archaic idea of a universe describes everything in our universe since the big-bang doesn’t make it logically impossible for there to be other universes.

Our universe may be one distinct end of the big bang. There might have been multiple expansion events originating from the same singularity. Like spokes on a wheel. An analogy would be that our particular space-time is like one of some number of rods radiating from the center of a wheel. And there may even be multiple extents of that same idea in the sense that there maybe multiple wheels with multiple space-times…
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
archaic
Click to expand...
How about using the term less fanciful, or fantastical, maybe just less imaginative. However, if we want to turn up the emotional volume, we could call the idea less bizarre, less absurd, or less preposterous.

How about just leaving it at: “Your idea of a universe describes everything in our universe since the big-bang. It is not logically impossible for there to be other universes.”

But then this entire thread seems bent on causing bad feelings. Darwin’s evil? Come on…
 
Why is everyone intent on keeping the trolls well fed?
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is reality that we can think of as an existent structure that is open to discovery. Nature exists and we can understand its workings.

In terms of the ways in which we understand our world, natural evolution as an explanation seeks to explain the existence and flowering of diverse life forms on earth in terms of processes we find in nature. It has been elaborated over and over on numerous other threads that it is a mistaken view. The science behind it, the data is valid, the evolutionary interpretation is not. So, this mythos of our times is not evil. What would be evil would be the purposeful propagation of a known falsehood. It should also be pointed out that its implications are used to justify evil acts.

As to what we find in the world about us, natural evolution is an aspect of death - random disruption of an established order and the removal of organisms and species from the world. As such, it is a consequence of original sin and might be thought of as an evil.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top