Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh

I agree with Modulus. I'd add that your argument doesn't have much to do with evolution as such. If we simply replaced the actual evolution with a form of Progressive Creation - i.e. if we change the "how" of how new species or larger taxonomic groupings come into existence from evolution to Divine creation - surely your argument would be unchanged.To follow on it seems you are arguing that Christianity must take a YEC "no death before Adam", Flood Geology view. That's a very strong claim - and one that not a few conservative Christians would reject. You're not just attacking "New Age" stuff, or even liberal Christianity - you're even attacking the more moderate conservative groups. So you need a really good argument here. And to have that you really have to show that the view you are pushing solves the problem. That there is a plausible Fall scenario that doesn't require God to be cruel or fallible or limited in power or otherwise incompatible with Christian belief. I don't think that you can do it - not without resorting to the sort of dodges that could also save other scenarios. And if you can't do that then evolution is not only largely irrelevant to your argument - it is completely irrelevant. You are really just arguing against Christianity with evolution thrown in as a red herring.

Oh there's the "Unknown purpose" defence ("God has a reason, but we don't know what it is"). It's logically unassailable but not really a position that can be defended rationally.But unless the Fall actually helps really explain suffering then you're forced back to supposing that there are reasons that justify the suffering - and unless you can find convincing reasons the "Unknown Purpose" defence is about as good as you can get.

No, the "Unknown Purpose" defence is not rationally defensible. A rational defence would have to give a good reason to think that there were such reasons. Simply arguing that we cannot understand God's thinking falls short of that.

I suggest you explain yourself better. "Reasons that make rational sense abound" - for what ?

quote:

---

Evolution itself works on such tentives.

---

I don't think so - you really need to consider the problems with the idea of an "Unknown Purpose" before you make such a claim.

OK, your "rational reasons" aren't anything really relevant to the specific point we were discussing.But just because you can make sense of a few things - at least on a superficial level - doesn't mean that the more difficult problems. Now I'll agree that pre-fall suffering isn't a bigger problem than post-fall suffering - but both are huge problems.You see you are actually talking about the limits on what God can do. You actually have to say that every bit of suffering that actually occurs produces some greater benefit that CAN'T be achieved in in any way that involves less suffering - not even God can manage things any better. That's an incredibly strong claim and not one that can be casually assumed.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The reasoning for post-fall suffering is as clear as day and is not a problem at all. Gods wrath poured out on sin is what is going on.

---

I don't agree. Even allowing for your view that animals don't suffer - itself highly questionable - there's the whole question of why the Fall happened at all. If God's so perfect it wouldn't happen unless He wanted it to happen.

quote:

---

Now a person could say that that seems somewhat extreme a reaction but they would wouldn't they - they are fallen. Or to put it in a less smartass fashion - without knowing the extremity of the significance of sin one is not in a position to say the reaction is extreme.

---

Even the "less smartass" version amounts to "if you don't know I'm right you're in no position to say I'm wrong". But the idea that - say - leaving the cap off the toothpaste is sufficient to justify the punishment of not only the guilty party but many others as well is a pretty obvious overreaction. So you really do need to make a serious case for what you're claiming.

quote:

---

If God says sin is that bad then it is. If this is unacceptable is it only because you say so. We have Gods view vs your view. Thus we either believe you or we believe God. Then we must ask why should we believe you over God.

---

Of course that isn't what I'm saying at all. It is generally accepted that "sins" are bad (although it might certainly be questioned if some supposed "sins" really are sinful - or bad). The question is does the sin justify suffering ? It clearly isn't the case that the worst sinners endure the worst suffering or that the righteous are spared (is that not the point of Job ?). So simply claiming that "sin" is a justification for even post-fall suffering is far from clear - even if God did not intend or desire the Fall.

quote:

---

I think the wrath of God poured out on mankind because of his wickedness is fairly well established myself.

---

I'd say that it is at best widely believed. I haven't seen any serious arguments that deal with the problems. In my opinion it's just another apologetic assertion that doesn't really stand up.

quote:

---

"Even allowing for my view" can work both ways. It is highly questionable that animals suffer if one has first accepted (for that is the grounds on which we must investigate the thread title) that man is a species completely apart

---

You're confusing two different things. I am temporarily accepting your assertion for the sake of argument while pointing out that there are good reasons to doubt it. As Faith says we can't access the persepctive of other humans either, but even allowing for the risk of anthropomorphising animals I think that it is quite clear that the more "advanced' animals act as if they are self-aware and feel pain. You can argue that "really" they just act that way while not really having any awareness but it's a view that isn't supported by any actual evidence.

quote:

---

I don't see any imperfection in God because of the fall of man. He allowed man a choice and allowed man to reap the consequences of that choice. He warned them there would be consequences too. God is vindicated no matter what the outcome for individuals.

---

If God intended the Fall then He is responsible for it. If He did not then we have to ask why it occurred at all. Did God fail ? Is this failure one that God could not be reasonably expected to anticipate and prevent ?

quote:

---

God made it that Adam would pass on that which made him man to his offspring. Like breeds like. We all got our mankindedness from him. That was the order set up. Now if Adam goes and makes a mutant of himself with his rebellion then all his offspring will be mutants.

---

i.e. this God who supposedly hates sin deliberately arranged to create lots of unnecessary sin. No, it isn't plausible that the Christian God would do anything of the sort.

quote:

---

The only person who can decide how bad sin is is God. We cannot. We can debate all we like but patently this is the way it is and it is fairly clear from the Bible that that is the view he takes. Any argument about it being too severe stumbles over that fact.

---

As I said the Bible also makes it clear that the suffering on Earth is NOT allocated on the basis of sin and some people do suffer more than they deserve. That is what Job is about. So my argument does not stumble over your "alleged" fact unless you wish to refute the Book of Job. Indeed even without that your point would stumble over itself. If it could be reasonably held to be true there would be no need to invoke it.

quote:

---

I know the the good die young and that the wicked prosper but we must remember that this life of ours is but a blip. It is a temporary arena where eternal destination is figured out.

---

And of course this is another view which is not really defensible, but could be used to justify pre-Fall suffering.

I have a strong feeling that Robin wished to limit Christianity to YEC or YEC-like views to discredit it. He certainly didn't seem to greatly care if the Fall was a valid explanation or not.I suspect he viewed Faith as a "useful idiot" - a Christian (or at least a nominal Christian) who was willing and happy to aid in an assault on Christianity, without understanding what she was doing.