Film: Creation (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Scientist, that's a fair enough observation you make regarding the absense of omni-benevolence in certain official articulations of the Church's faith.But I don't think we can say, particularly I don't think the Catholic (of which I am one...) can say that it is not really a big deal.Your observation about its absence raises an important distinction brought to light in something like Rahner's editted work "Sacramentum Mundi." At times articulations about God betray a greater interest in philosophical speculation than in biblical revelation. I don't want to give the impression of disinterest in philosophy, but Christianity to someone like Ratzinger is "not a philosophical speculation...but is a Revelation."Your quote is from the first Vatican Council. Consider the Second, however, and you'll see, I think, evidences of this distinction.Now, I wouldn't myself see perceived "wasteful design" as necessarily suggesting malevolence, because I don't think one has to view death as evil. Catholic (and particularly Franciscan) motivated theological antropology, especially surrounding the Medieval speculations as to whether humans might have died had they not sinned, brings to light a possible reconciliation.

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

With all do respect, I don't see much point going on here.To me, this borders on the incredible. That it would be so difficult to figure out what I am seeking here...A part of me wants to think you are winding me up. But I don't think you are.Which means I appreciate your sincerity, but find this a meaningless exercise.Who would have thought it would be so difficult to seek out people who hold to two very specific characteristics, and ask them how they hold such characteristics together in light of perceived waste.As a serious concluding question, is this sort of discussion representative of what takes place here on EVCForum?

---

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson