Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Film: Creation (2009)
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 1 of 39 (613315)
04-24-2011 5:54 PM


Hi People,
As my first post, I wanted to introduce a subject motivated by my viewing of the movie "Creation" (2009). This is the story of Charles Darwin, and aesthetically is excellent. I certainly recommend it.
At my blog (kellyjwilson), I identify a number of issues the film raised for me, and here I'd like to identify jusy one.
If you hold to an omni-benevolent view of God, and also the reality of evolution, I'm interested to know how you engage with the following matter:
In Creation, Darwin rather sarcastically observes the love he [God] shows for the butterflies by inventing a wasp that lays its eggs inside the living flesh of caterpillars. Referencing Malthus, and Malthus’ observation regarding the way in which epidemics, famines and wars keep the world’s limited resources in balance with those who would consume such resources, Darwin asks why this exceedingly wasteful plan? In light of a Creator often associated with goodness, why does it have to be, as Tennyson describes in his long-poem "In Memoriam," a nature red in tooth and claw?

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 7:11 PM KellyWilson has replied
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 5:12 PM KellyWilson has replied
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2011 10:06 AM KellyWilson has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


(1)
Message 2 of 39 (613321)
04-24-2011 6:24 PM


So this is spam to bring traffic to a blog.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 04-24-2011 10:49 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 39 (613332)
04-24-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KellyWilson
04-24-2011 5:54 PM


If you hold to an omni-benevolent view of God, and also the reality of evolution ...
Why the qualification "and also believe in evolution"? The fact that nature can be quite nasty remains a fact even if one doesn't believe in evolution.
You mention, for example, Tennyson's line about "nature red in tooth and claw". But he wrote this before Darwin published the Origin of Species. That observation doesn't require the theory of evolution to underpin it, it's true anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KellyWilson, posted 04-24-2011 5:54 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by KellyWilson, posted 04-24-2011 10:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 39 (613385)
04-24-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tram law
04-24-2011 6:24 PM


So this is spam to bring traffic to a blog.
So what if it is? We can all still discuss the topic without going to the blog.
I think this is in the wrong forum, though, and Kelly circumvented the PNT process by posting in the Coffee House. I'll wait till that matter is sorted out before commenting on the actual topic.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tram law, posted 04-24-2011 6:24 PM Tram law has not replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 5 of 39 (613389)
04-24-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2011 7:11 PM


The qualification exists because it's those two details (a belief in the ominbenevolence of God & the reality of evolution), when combained in one person when both person,,,those are the people whose engagement with this issue I invite.
As for Tennyson, the point is simple: Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' is a central influence. Following someone like Hutton, Lyell differed from many who suggested that the earth had undergone periodic revolutions which explained its geological state. Given the way that religion had operated within science, the result was a tendency towards reconciling the various epochs with the various days of Genesis. The alternative to this sort of Catastrophism was proposed by Hutton, Uniformitarianism, and was not widely accepted until Lyell 'Principles'.
Now the reason this is significant to the topic I have proposed is because Lyell encyclopedically investigated geological remains in the Auvergne, in Italy, in his native Scotland, in North American, and in the Canaries. When combined with the fossils he had discovered of extinct mammalian species in the Jurassic and Triassic strata, Lyell was led to the conclusionthat nature was wasteful and that species could be cast as rubbish to the void.
I don't have time to offer a lesson in history, but the point of this post is not the ToE, but rather the relationship between the supposed omnibenevolence of God, and what appears to be a very wasteful design...
As for the other chap, who thinks I'm here to spam, my advice would be to refuse to give me the attention you perceive me to be seeking...
Edited by KellyWilson, : No reason given.
Edited by KellyWilson, : No reason given.

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 7:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 04-25-2011 11:38 AM KellyWilson has replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-25-2011 6:32 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 39 (613441)
04-25-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by KellyWilson
04-24-2011 10:54 PM


I don't have time to offer a lesson in history, but the point of this post is not the ToE, but rather the relationship between the supposed omnibenevolence of God, and what appears to be a very wasteful design...
I don't think benevolence and wastefulness are necessarily exclusive characteristics. Combine this with the fact that benevolence and wastefulness are completely subjective qualities, and I'd say that there is little problem with an apparently benevolent God creating an apparently wasteful Universe.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KellyWilson, posted 04-24-2011 10:54 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by KellyWilson, posted 04-25-2011 12:35 PM Jon has replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 7 of 39 (613445)
04-25-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
04-25-2011 11:38 AM


I agree with your comment about one characteristic not necessarily exlcuding the other, and I also agree with your prefacing such characteristics with the term "apparent."
Having said this, to the Victorian, if the world was much older than previously thought, then the reign of death had been much longer than supposed. Once you throw the human person into the far-older-than-supposed world, he or she is drawn into this reign of death. Robert Chambers, in 1844, would write that "the individual is left, as it were, to take his chance amidst the melee of the various laws affecting him," and at a certain point in the future, having already been drawn into this reign of death, humanity itself will be subject to death, as a higher species naturally emerges.
The reason I bring this up is because many Christian people willing to tip their hat to the reality of evolution, still speak, as Paul did in the Letter to the Romans, when he stated that through sin, death entered the world...

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 04-25-2011 11:38 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 04-25-2011 1:20 PM KellyWilson has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 39 (613451)
04-25-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by KellyWilson
04-25-2011 12:35 PM


Vanity of vanities
I agree with your comment about one characteristic not necessarily exlcuding the other, and I also agree with your prefacing such characteristics with the term "apparent."
Then I am having difficulty understanding what this topic was meant to address, since you originally asked for a reconciliation of these two concepts, though now admit that they need no reconciling.
Having said this, to the Victorian, if the world was much older than previously thought, then the reign of death had been much longer than supposed. Once you throw the human person into the far-older-than-supposed world, he or she is drawn into this reign of death. Robert Chambers, in 1844, would write that "the individual is left, as it were, to take his chance amidst the melee of the various laws affecting him," and at a certain point in the future, having already been drawn into this reign of death, humanity itself will be subject to death, as a higher species naturally emerges.
Everything dies; almost every living thing ever already has died. What bearing does this have on the actual benevolence of God? How is death actually wasteful?
The reason I bring this up is because many Christian people willing to tip their hat to the reality of evolution, still speak, as Paul did in the Letter to the Romans, when he stated that through sin, death entered the world...
On the face of it, it appears that Paul and anyone arguing in like fashion about the relationship of death and sin are simply wrong. However, it may be possible to reconcile the position Paul takes with our observation of reality. But even if that were done, I'm not sure what good it would do.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KellyWilson, posted 04-25-2011 12:35 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by KellyWilson, posted 04-25-2011 5:10 PM Jon has replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 9 of 39 (613492)
04-25-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jon
04-25-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Vanity of vanities
Hi Jon,
Three points.
First, the topic being addressed I hoped would be rather straightforward. In my Opening Post I inquired into how persons holding to both the omni-benevolence of God, and also the reality of evolution, reconciled such a position given what we know about the role death or perceived waste plays in all this.
Second, regarding the bearing which death has on the benevolence of God, the issue has less to do with death's existence, than its does with its emergence and with its extent. Paley had observed that "there cannot be design, without a designer," and he viewed organisms as giving evidence of having been designed. Paley was of the view that only God could account for such perfection, multitude and diversity within the organisms.
But when, by 50 years later, death's emergence was seen as long long prior to the emergence of humans, the concern of someone like Tennyson was whether God and Nature were at strife.
" 'So careful of the type?' but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, 'A thousand types are gone;
I care for nothing, all shall go.' " (In Memoriam, LVI)
My interest in this Topic is how people respond. I can't claim to be interested in the literal reader of Genesis, as he won't take reality of evolution seriously, and as he will attribute death and waste as emerging after the Fall of Adam and Eve. Similarily, if a person accepts the reality of evolution, but not the benevolence of God, then there is also no issue. Who I want to hear from are those people who hold to both the reality of evolution, and benevolence of God.
Third, regarding Paul, if he really did view all death as emerging from the sin of Adam and Eve, then we could simply identify him as being wrong. Can hardly blame (in my view). If your familiar with the retribution theories of the Old Testament wisdom literature, and recognize them as existing in Paul's time, it's certainly easy to see how he would have been conditioned into a particular way of interpretting the relationship between sin and death.

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 04-25-2011 1:20 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 04-25-2011 6:57 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 39 (613493)
04-25-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KellyWilson
04-24-2011 5:54 PM


KellyWilson writes:
If you hold to an omni-benevolent view of God, and also the reality of evolution, I'm interested to know how you engage with the following matter:
In Creation, Darwin rather sarcastically observes the love he [God] shows for the butterflies by inventing a wasp that lays its eggs inside the living flesh of caterpillars.
perhaps it's because the notion of an omnibenevolent god is nonsense. it's certainly not supportable from a biblical standpoint, and it doesn't particularly jive with reality, either.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KellyWilson, posted 04-24-2011 5:54 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by KellyWilson, posted 04-25-2011 5:31 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2011 5:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 11 of 39 (613497)
04-25-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
04-25-2011 5:12 PM


That's a fair enough point (although I think you have to allow for an evolving perception of "God," which is evident in the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament, and I think philosophically you have to recognize that people's subjective experience of [they claim is] God, has no bearing on the existence of God itself).
I wouldn't consider your comment much of a contribution, however, to the engagement I am seeking here. Again, no reconciliation is necessary considering your point of view, just as there's no reconciliation is necessary for the literal reader of Gesesis...
Edited by KellyWilson, : No reason given.

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 5:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 6:36 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 39 (613498)
04-25-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
04-25-2011 5:12 PM


Not the OP
perhaps it's because the notion of an omnibenevolent god is nonsense
But this is not the point of the thread is it. There certainly are people who believe such a thing.
The OP asks those who believe such a nonsense AND acknowledge the fact of biological evolution how they resolve the "cruelty" conflict between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 5:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 6:39 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 39 (613506)
04-25-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KellyWilson
04-24-2011 10:54 PM


I don't have time to offer a lesson in history, but the point of this post is not the ToE, but rather the relationship between the supposed omnibenevolence of God, and what appears to be a very wasteful design...
Yes ... but I still maintain that the design is equally wasteful (not to mention cruel) if one adheres to fiat creationism. The Malthusian pressures remain, as does the fact of extinction; as does the redness in tooth and claw. At least if there is evolution these cruel and wasteful processes achieve something; if there is no evolution the flaws of nature are entirely gratuitous.
As for Tennyson, the point is simple: Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' is a central influence.
This is true; but a Cuvierian catastrophist could also have concluded that nature was not "careful of the type". What with all the extinct types.
And indeed nowadays although we tend to agree with Lyell about sedimentary deposition we take a more catastrophic view of extinction; but this does not stop us from thinking that it's a wasteful process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KellyWilson, posted 04-24-2011 10:54 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 39 (613507)
04-25-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by KellyWilson
04-25-2011 5:31 PM


KellyWilson writes:
I wouldn't consider your comment much of a contribution, however, to the engagement I am seeking here. Again, no reconciliation is necessary considering your point of view, just as there's no reconciliation is necessary for the literal reader of Gesesis...
well, perhaps that's just for lack of further commentary, in which case i apologize for the shorter post. it's just on that particular issue that i fail to see the need for reconciliation. or rather, i do -- and the reconciliation is that this notion of god is wrong. logically speaking, if you have an assumption, and the assumptions plus the resulting facts lead you to a contradiction in terms, you have a proof by contradiction that your assumption was wrong.
so, if we have the assumption: "there is an omnibenevolent (and omnipotent) god"
and the observation: "evil exists"
clearly, our assumption was in error. which is the best reconciliation here? acknowledging our error, or attempting to demonstrate some complex theological or philosophical construct in which evil is really good somehow? considering, particularly, that the omnibenevolence of god was not originally one of the core propositions of the tradition (indeed, the law exists because god's will alone was not good enough for man), i'm going to go with the first one.
now, of course, there is a particular theodicy given in the film, if i recall. something along the lines of "we have to eat" and about how selection helps direct towards improvement. i take it you didn't like that particular explanation?
in any case, though don't particularly find reasons to engage in mental gymnastics over this issue, there are certainly other issues that i find much more troubling. for instance, the god of the gaps issue. are these issues on topic here?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by KellyWilson, posted 04-25-2011 5:31 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 39 (613509)
04-25-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AZPaul3
04-25-2011 5:42 PM


Re: Not the OP
AZPaul3 writes:
But this is not the point of the thread is it. There certainly are people who believe such a thing.
certainly. but isn't "that's probably not right" the best way to address the apparent contradiction?
image we had a thread asking how we justify space shuttle orbits with a flat earth. wouldn't the most appropriate response be, "the earth isn't flat"?
The OP asks those who believe such a nonsense AND acknowledge the fact of biological evolution how they resolve the "cruelty" conflict between the two.
okay, should those people exist, they are welcome to contribute. do we have any members here that believe in an omnibenevolent god and recognize the factual evidence of evolution?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2011 5:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2011 7:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024