Film: Creation (2009)

Well, I cannot necessarily speak for those people; however, I do believe in GOD, and I am an empiricist and so far have seen every reason to know for myself that the theory of evolution is currently the most convincing explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I also believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen (I think that's how the Christians word it, anyway).That said, perhaps you'll still find some value in my take on the matter, so here it goes: I do not believe in an absolute moralityI believe that morality is a human construct. I do not think animals hold morals, or that rocks hold morals, or that trees hold morals; what I see is that the only critters who hold to these things called 'morals' are humans. Our moral judgements and pronouncements are only relevant to ourselves. All the evidence indicates that they have meaning to no other creature other than us. So, we may decide GOD is bad, and if we believe GOD is bad, then so be itif GOD exists, then GOD exists; if evolution is true, then evolution is true. If we believe GOD is good, then so be itif GOD exists, then GOD exists; if evolution is true, then evolution is true.GOD cannot be either good or bad if for GOD neither good nor bad exist. Even if good and bad exist for GOD, then GOD's set of morals are only relevant to GOD (no matter whom else they may affect), and it is likely that GOD does things that GOD mostly sees as good so that GOD is likely convinced of HIS own benevolence. If GOD mostly does things that we believe are good, then that is some reason to support GOD; if GOD mostly does things that we believe are bad, then that is reason to oppose GOD. But none of that will change the fact that GOD still believes HERSELF to be benevolent. And, above and beyond all else, no matter how good or bad we perceive the world or how good or bad we perceive GOD, if GOD exists, GOD exists, and if the world is, then the world is.All the philosophers both dead and alive cannot, even collectively, think the existent out of existence.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I do not know. We may see. And who knows what lurkers are out there that may be drawn in? For you and I, sure. But we are not the ones to whom the OP is addressed. Or the space shuttle is not real. Or the shuttle is flying down the column of turtles. Or ... or ... or... Who knows what explinations are out there? We're dealing with people here. Some very fascinating things appear in the hearts and minds of humans. But, this is not a thread about earths or shuttles so this is irrelevant.

i still say my answer is valid possibility. the OP is asking a question that a) may very well not have an answer, at least an easily resolved one, and b) asking it of people that are quite rare, and may not even be present on this board. to suggest that the obvious contradiction is obviously a contradiction isn't really all that out of line in a thread asking how we make the obvious contradiction a not-so-obvious non-contradiction.

---

אָרַח

I am not asking for an answer. I am asking for persons, who meet certain criteria, to explain how they "engage" with the issue.Such people meeting such criteria are not rare at all. Most theists, for example, that I have met, are perfectly fine with the reality of evolution. But I don't think a good deal of reflection has gone into the issues I have raised about waste. In any event such people might be rare at this particular forum. I don't know.What I find difficult to figure out are the digressions taking place here. If you don't like the topic, don't engage with it. But if you are going to, the leave your own person digressions aside. I haven't been here long enough to figure out if the quality of some of these comments stems more from bad manners than an inability to think critically. But either way...

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

I don't know anyone who thinks god is omni-benevolent and also accepts evolution.Typically, the people who think god is omni-benevolent are the ones who don't accept evolution and the ones who accept evolution allow for more variety in gods qualities.I accept evolution, but I don't think god is omni-benevolent. However, I can make whatever assumptions necessary and speak hypothetically... Is this any different than that standard "Problem of Evil"?The escape from the contradiction is that either god is not omni-benevolent or that said things are not really evil.Are you just wanting to explore the explanations for why an exceedingly wasteful plan would not be evil?

I am a theist, Christian, understand that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is both the best and in fact only explanation we currently have for the variety of life we see.And I am totally clueless what the issue is that you are trying to address.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Jar, I have no solutions to your state of cluelessness about this post...It seems to be though that it is patently obvious.I have identified the people to whom I seek to address, and I have identified how such people hold together two characteristics (God's omni-benevolence & the reality of evolution) when considering the question of waste, or what Tennyson considered to be a God and nature at strife.I can only repeat this so many times before I appear as foolish as those either derailing the discussion, or those who continue to identify their inability to see the point of the post...

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

Well, we have learned much in the century plus since Tennyson lived and he was a poet and so wrote poetically and in imagery as opposed to scientifically, "Nature, red in tooth and claw" being a good example.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You can't be suggesting that what have we learned since Tennyson has rendered his observations about waste obsolete.Nor can you be suggesting that because language is poetic it conveys nothing.Nor can you be suggesting that the hard facts of science contradict what Tennyson intends to convey.Because you can't be suggesting any of these things, you'll understand if I question entirely the relevance of your last comment.Might I suggest we cease conversing on this subject?

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

You don't know anyone who believes God is omni-benevolent and accepts the reality of evolution? Well, I don't know what you intend to convey with your ID as a "Catholic Scientist" but perhaps I might refer you to Pope Benedict. I can't imagine you would assert him as being alone in this view. This is the typically held view of Catholics for example, that God is omni-benevolent, and that evolution is a reality.The issue I raise runs slightly deeper than the typically heard articulations of the problem of evil, and the main reason is because of the existence of what appears to be waste and death, long prior to the emergence of humans...

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Kelly,Welcome to EvC. Maybe your problem is that you think mankind was created a few thousand years ago, when mankind was created in the beginning, prior to any creature on earth according to Genesis 2:7.I happen to be a literalist that does not believe in evolution as preached here at EvC. So I won't be able to add any more to the thread.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

if your criteria is:

1. theist, and
2. understands evolution

then i meet your criteria. granted, i do not accept the omni-benevolence of god, but this actually comes from logical analysis based on your very assumption of that omni-benevolence. i reject it because it fails to make sense, especially in context of your argument.it's great that you want to hear explanations, but i personally find that obvious explanation is the one that also makes the most sense. it is sort of like if you asked a cult member how they explain the discrepancy between their prophet's projected date for the end of the world, and the fact that that date was several weeks ago, and they replied, "yes, well, that's why i left the cult". i suspect that you have answered your own question -- people who meet your criteria typically avoid the question, or frankly do not truly grasp the reality of evolution and/or their own religion. no, i think the topic is interesting, and i'd also like to hear other potential rationalizations. however, i still maintain that proposing an error in the assumptions is an appropriate response.and i object to the characterization that this stems from "an inability to think critically". questioning the basic assumptions is the epitome of thinking critically, particularly when basic rational logic clearly demonstrate that one or more assumptions is likely in error.i apologize that i did not provide the explanation you were fishing for. however, just because you don't like my explanation does not mean that it is not an explanation. and i maintain that is likely the most rational and supportable resolution given the two primary sources.

---

אָרַח

I note your observations.I really do understand what your saying.And now I need to appeal to you to understand what I am saying.I am not looking for what you may see as the best explanation to the larger issue. I am looking to learn from those who hold to two very specific characteristics (the extent to which either characteristic is valid or not to you, you'll understand, is not the point of the post).Further, I never said inability to engage with the topic I have proposed represented an inability to engage critically. What I said was that I haven't been here long enough to discern whether it stems from bad manners, or an inability to think critically.

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

i understand, of course. you'll also note that i said i would personally welcome such responses because i am curious as well.personally, i suspect the answer is so obvious that you yourself even contributed it already: the people who do accept both propositions have not adequately analyzed either their religion, or evolution, or both -- they simply don't think about this kind of issue, or aren't aware of it. i suspect you will get a lot of silence on the issue, followed by a few small theodicies about how evil (waste, etc) really exists for a greater good, or some such other doublespeak. as i pointed out in Message 14, i believe this is the sort of explanation offered in the film itself. but as someone who used to accept both propositions myself, i can say that all of those guesses are based on personal experience. i had not adequately examined the religion, nor had i the will to think about it at any length (lest i be tempted to lose faith), and i frequently offered similar explanations about how evil was really good. if you look hard enough, i'm sure you can find examples of that on this very forum. for instance, i'm relatively positive that you can find me offering that very explanation in this thread, on god's relationship to the concept of evil. i'm not sure which is worse. however, you will note that i am very much applying critical thought to this idea and that i am not attempting to be rude. i am, i feel, genuinely contributing my stance.

---

אָרַח