A simple argument against OEC

[Philosophickle]

Ok, I take OEC to be the position that the earth is old, evolution may or may not be true, God created the universe and is involved in the process of the development of life to different degrees (prog- creationism; theistic evolution etc). So let's take the traditional conception of a creator God which will be common to any OEC-- God, in some capacity or another, created the universe with full knowledge of how his creation would go. In philosospeak, God picked a relevant possible world that fulfilled his creative desires; World 1 (W1) is the world we live in, or, the actual world. W2 is just like our world but humans are born with painful tumors all over their body and die a terribly frightful death at the (average) age of 35. W3 is like ours save the colors blue and green are inverted such that the ocean and sky are green and the grass is blue.

Now, I understand why God prefers W1 over W2; Since both worlds are possible to create and God has sufficient power to create W1, then it seems a good God would create W1 over W2. I don't know why he would create W1 over W3, but that doesn't seem to bother me very much; I'm sure there were worlds similar enough to each other that the selection of one over the other is simply a matter of preference (i.e. not a morally significant decision). But, while humans don't have painful tumors growing underneath their skin, we do have other genetic flaws that require explanation. For instance, there is a blind spot in the human eye due to some wonky engineering. It is easy to understand these mistakes evolutionarily, but let's imagine the scenario from God's perspective.

There are two worlds:

W1: The actual world. Humans have blindspots.
W2: Similar to the actual world in every respect except for the eye has no blindspots.

Since we are stuck with W1 rather than W2, why did God pick the former?

[The Curtmudgeon]

You seem to be assuming that there was no Fall of Man in a literal sense, Phil; i.e., every aspect of the world today resulted from Creation and not a later Corruption. Is that generally assumed by OEC?

The (I'm actually ignerunt about OEC's position on this) Curtmudgeon

[Philosophickle]

You seem to be assuming that there was no Fall of Man in a literal sense, Phil; i.e., every aspect of the world today resulted from Creation and not a later Corruption. Is that generally assumed by OEC?

The (I'm actually ignerunt about OEC's position on this) Curtmudgeon

I'm not sure what all OEC's believe, and I considered putting something about that in my OP. I think TEs will generally deny a literal fall event in the YEC sense; that is, things were imperfect prior to man's sin. This is why YEC and maybe Gap theorists are immune to the criticism as far as I can tell.

[Philosophickle]

Mods, I didn't realize TEs couldn't post in this forum. Could you either move it to the proper fora or allow TEs in?

[technomage]

You seem to be assuming that there was no Fall of Man in a literal sense, Phil; i.e., every aspect of the world today resulted from Creation and not a later Corruption. Is that generally assumed by OEC?

The Fall (assuming the narrative is literal truth) brought a curse to the serpent, enmity between the serpent and the woman, painful childbirth, thorns and thistles, and a general "earn your bread by the sweat of your brow." I see nothing in the Fall about disease, much less inefficiency in human design. Indeed, I see nothing in the fall about death, per se--Genesis 3:17-19 seems to imply that Adam would have eventually suffered old age and died even without the Fall.

Of course, by the same token, arguments of "It would have been more efficient if God would have done X" to be slightly silly. We can look at efficiency based on the information we have available, but even based on info available to us as human beings, efficiency is not the sole criteria for design: there are also such factors as limitations of the materials, the compromises of complex designs in a limited volume of space, and even esthetics. And that's just from looking at things from a human perspective--from the divine perspective, of course, there may be other design criteria that we are unaware of.

[The Curtmudgeon]

The Fall (assuming the narrative is literal truth) brought a curse to the serpent, enmity between the serpent and the woman, painful childbirth, thorns and thistles, and a general "earn your bread by the sweat of your brow." I see nothing in the Fall about disease, much less inefficiency in human design. Indeed, I see nothing in the fall about death, per se--Genesis 3:17-19 seems to imply that Adam would have eventually suffered old age and died even without the Fall.

Well, the part about the Fall being the cause of disease, etc., is an inference from Gen. 1:31:

Genesis 1:31

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The word translated 'very' is not used for the previous days' creation acts; only for this summary statement about "everything that He had made". If "everything that He had made" up to this point included disease or death, how could He call it "very good"? Therefore, for disease & death to have entered the creation, it had to happen after the close of Day 6, ergo as a part of the Fall.

This is, of course, a YEC interpretation, but I would think that any other position which also accepts the literal truth of the Fall in Gen. 3 would also interpret it as the occasion when disease & death entered the world. I could be wrong there, of course.

The (I know that many take an allegorical approach to Gen. 3 for that reason, but maybe not everyone) Curtmudgeon

[Carrikature]

Well, the part about the Fall being the cause of disease, etc., is an inference from Gen. 1:31:

Genesis 1:31

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The word translated 'very' is not used for the previous days' creation acts; only for this summary statement about "everything that He had made". If "everything that He had made" up to this point included disease or death, how could He call it "very good"? Therefore, for disease & death to have entered the creation, it had to happen after the close of Day 6, ergo as a part of the Fall.

This is, of course, a YEC interpretation, but I would think that any other position which also accepts the literal truth of the Fall in Gen. 3 would also interpret it as the occasion when disease & death entered the world. I could be wrong there, of course.

The (I know that many take an allegorical approach to Gen. 3 for that reason, but maybe not everyone) Curtmudgeon

It is only a problem if you consider death and disease a bad thing. From a broader perspective, they are simply another facet of creation. Consider Ophiocordyceps unilateralis :

http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/03/19/killer-fungi-and-zombie-ants/

Here is a parasitic fungus that infects ants. The infected ant wanders away from its nest; the ant then reaches a leaf or another plant part. The fungus makes the ant to bite the leaf so powerfully, it hangs from the leaf until it eventually dies; and then (excited-by-gross-stuff six-year old emerging): the fungus grows an upside down stalk out of the dead ant’s head, releasing spores that fall to the ground. The spores are then picked up by ants that walk over them, causing them to wander away from the nest, bite other leaves… Ad nauseam.

© source where applicable

The amazing thing is, there are many different types of this fungus, and each one targets a specific species! Death is a part of creation, not separate from it or anathema to it.

In fact, Genesis 3:22 would imply that man was not meant to live forever.

FWIW, I do accept the Fall of Man to be literal, and I don't think death and disease entered the world then.





@Philo: Out of curiosity, why did you start a thread against OEC without knowing what all they believe?

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Thread moved to Cosmogony 201.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[technomage]

Well, the part about the Fall being the cause of disease, etc., is an inference from Gen. 1:31:
*And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.* And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The word translated 'very' is not used for the previous days' creation acts; only for this summary statement about "everything that He had made". If "everything that He had made" up to this point included disease or death, how could He call it "_very_ good"? Therefore, for disease & death to have entered the creation, it had to happen after the close of Day 6, ergo as a part of the Fall.

I'm familiar with that inferrence, having grown up YEC. I guess my problem is while it is not a bad inferrence, it is not verifiable (one way or another) from the text. My argument about death seemingly being something that would have happened to Adam is also inferrence, but I would not even attempt to say which is the more likely.

One thing to look at, however, is the presence of predators in pre-fall Earth. Meat-eating animals must kill for their food, and it would be reasonable to assume that meat-eating animals ate meat even before the fall. But to counter that example, we have Isa 65:25, where the wolf and the lion are portrayed as being changed to herbivores in the New Heavens and New Earth.

I guess my point is this: there is most certainly room for either interpretation to be held, without rancor. I am glad that there are people (like those involved in this thread) who are willing to discuss the issue without the discussion degenerating into an argument. It sure beats the heck out of many of the threads in Natural Science.

[Carrikature]

I do understand the "very good" explanation. I have a hard time inferring a complete reworking of the natural order (plant/animal interactions, etc) based on God's curse.

[Darth Executor]

Since we are stuck with W1 rather than W2, why did God pick the former?

Short answer:
I don't know. Nobody can unless God directly volunteers the information.

Long answer:
I don't think He did. I think He set a physical universe in motion with a handful of parameters and then let it develop into what it will. And while I disagree with Carrik that disease is a good thing, it does serve a purpose in that is one of the many things on our planet that test, forge (or break) men's souls. I think the parable of the sower is a pretty good (perhaps unintentional) description of why some things are bad: to get some actual good out of it. If the sower keeps his seeds in a pouch they will never develop into anything, good or bad. Only by throwing them in the real world can you get an actual harvest. On a philosophical level, people can't be good in any sense if they've never been exposed to any evil, and while we can never be perfect, some people will turn into a worthwile harvest once the seed is planted. If this sounds incoherent, I blame it on my flu.

[technomage]

If this sounds incoherent, I blame it on my flu.

Flu or not, that worked well. Thank you, and get to feeling better.

[Carrikature]

while I disagree with Carrik that disease is a good thing.

I would just like to clarify that I don't think disease is a good thing. From my standpoint, there are three categories things can fall under: good, bad, and neutral. Almost everything falls under the neutral category. Good and bad often have more to do with our reaction and perception of events, and less to do with the reality of the events themselves.


Also, I like both your short and long answers. I think they're very well put.



@Philosophickle: My earlier question to you about why you started an OEC thread without knowing what all OEC's believe was not meant to be accusatory. I hope you didn't take it that way.

[Philosophickle]

I think He set a physical universe in motion with a handful of parameters and then let it develop into what it will.

But unless you also believe that God doesn't know what he is doing, then you must believe that even though he didn't actively cause evil, he actively selected the world in which certain (seemingly gratuitous design flaws) exist. Both W1 and W2 were available, so I don't think we can punt to allowing a world to develop on its own.

A

nd while I disagree with Carrik that disease is a good thing, it does serve a purpose in that is one of the many things on our planet that test, forge (or break) men's souls. I think the parable of the sower is a pretty good (perhaps unintentional) description of why some things are bad: to get some actual good out of it. If the sower keeps his seeds in a pouch they will never develop into anything, good or bad. Only by throwing them in the real world can you get an actual harvest. On a philosophical level, people can't be good in any sense if they've never been exposed to any evil, and while we can never be perfect, some people will turn into a worthwile harvest once the seed is planted. If this sounds incoherent, I blame it on my flu.

This is an acceptable answer, I suppose. Perhaps there is a reason for every single flaw in human anatomy, for example. I find it unlikely to be true, but it's broadly coherent.

[Darth Executor]

But unless you also believe that God doesn't know what he is doing, then you must believe that even though he didn't actively cause evil, he actively selected the world in which certain (seemingly gratuitous design flaws) exist. Both W1 and W2 were available, so I don't think we can punt to allowing a world to develop on its own.

I'm saying He actively selected a method of creation through which either W1 and W2 could have developed. Whether W1 was intentional, or whether He just flipped a coin because it broadly didn't matter one way or another, I couldn't say. I tend to go with the latter.

This is an acceptable answer, I suppose. Perhaps there is a reason for every single flaw in human anatomy, for example. I find it unlikely to be true, but it's broadly coherent.

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying there's a specific reason for each one in particular. There may or may not be a reason for each one in particular, but there is a reason for flaws in general. I'm saying it doesn't really matter. It's a bit like the question "why did God create the universe in 7 days instead of instantly snapping His finger?" I can't say why exactly we have the flaws that we do (including the blind spot) but I can speculate as to why flaws in general have a purpose.