A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[Kbertsche]

I agree with all of what you say Rogue, I also think it would be embarassing for these academics to come out and endorse Balaam's donkey. As I said above, God is a useless appendage to their scientific views and God makes no difference in the story they would tell from that which their non-believing colleagues would tell.

Glenn, have you asked other evangelical TE's about Balaam's donkey? I think most would agree with you that it was a real miracle. The main miracles that you accept and they don't are in Gen 1-11; Balaam was much later.

I've been struck that a couple of my ASA TE friends (Denis Lamoureux and Bethany Sollereder) are charismatic, which I have a hard time reconciling with science. I discussed this with Bethany last weekend. She has no problem with a personal God who can intervene in our lives for salvation, also bestowing charismatic gifts in the present day.

I think it is overly simplistic to characterize evangelical TE's as simply denying miracles. Some of them may accept more present-day miracles than some of the rest of us, in fact. I think the issue is more a matter of interpretation of Gen 1-11.

[Adrift]

Yes

Well if in English or Greek, then you've necessarily allowed a theologists explanation of the verse. If in Hebrew, then you need to take into consideration the understanding of the original Hebrew audience, which requires those living in the 21st century more than a "natural reading".

[tabibito]

Well if in English or Greek, then you've necessarily allowed a theologists explanation of the verse. If in Hebrew, then you need to take into consideration the understanding of the original Hebrew audience, which requires those living in the 21st century more than a "natural reading".

? You haven't heard of linguists? But I'll admit that I should have said "theological commentaries" rather than "theologians" - for tis certain that in seeking understanding of scripture, one inevitably delves into theology.

I could have taken Jeremiah 4:23 (for example) as indicating a possible alternative understanding (actually, I did) and decided to accept that verse as showing the Earth to be simply devoid of anything worthwhile without further investigation (I didn't). The context of Jeremiah shows a certain degree of hyperbole, and is in any case, a post annihilation condition rather than a post creation condition. Furthermore, it is reasonably easy to determine that native understanding of the Hebrew in the passages is not the same - the translations in the Septuagint are nothing alike.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it was my point. My reading of Genesis is that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons, . . .

I need some references on this. Original authors?!?!!? I do not believe we have any knowledge of who may be the original authors of Genesis. I need more information on this before we go much further. I believe the predominant view historically in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic traditions, Adam and Eve are indeed real persons.

. . . whereas your Baha'i beliefs are based on a more literal belief in a historical core element behind the text. That is indeed a more literal reading of the text.

The belief that a person existed referenced in ancient text does not remotely mean any sort of literal meaning of the text itself.

You neglected one of my questions so I will ask again. If indeed all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, who were not necessarily the first physical human beings, was belief in God somehow instrumental in their descendents' evolutionary survival?

Why would other physical human beings, those who did not know God, if they existed, not survive?

Well, I do not have a direct answer to those questions, except there is indication that modern humans were more intelligent and adaptive then earlier humanoids. The current evidence indicates that modern humans hybridized and/or absorbed other related humanoids as they migrated out of Africa.

One of the interpretations of Genesis described by Abdul'baha was that the tree life represents the Word of God and the tree of good and evil represents humanity and the snake in the tree represents the darker side or sinful nature of humans. This symbolism does not describe Adam and Eve as being at fault for the sinful nature of humanity.

In the spiritual evolution of humanity, Adam is represented as the embryonic stage of the development of the soul.

[grmorton]

No, it's an issue of context, and no, context is not subjective, and neither is interpretation. This is essentially saying that the truth of the Bible is subjective. You really need to rethink what you are saying. If these meanings are subjective, then I can just say your whole post agrees with me. Do you really want to go down that road?

lol, if context is so objective, why do we have so many denominations all of which are based upon different interpretations of statements in the Bible all of which have context, but are subjected to various interpretations? Give me a break. The very idea that anything in litererature is objective, save for the very words used, is quite silly. Explain why so many see things differently in this supposedly objective medium of language or I will go no further with this discussion. I have no intention of getting into a yes it is no it isn't debate.

Oh, and remind me to say that interpretation is subjective next time I'm in Nat. Sci. 301, let's see how well that works.

Having spent 40 years being a scientist and managing science and scientists, I can tell you that there is much subjectivity in science. What values are thrown out of the analysis is in part subjective. A case in point about subjectivity, the failure of Newtonian science to predict the motion of stars far from the galactic center has given rise to the concept of dark matter. Problem is no one has ever seen dark matter. People still hold firmly that dark matter is an objective fact. But it could be that the laws of gravity need a tweak and there is no dark matter at all. MOND is an attempt to work that possiblity. Which one accepts is a matter of philosophical preference NOT objective knowledge.

I would actually love to get into the subjective nature of science, I firmly believe it is far more subjective than your grade school science teacher said it was.

I notice you din't answer this, and apparently didn't quote it properly.

I thought my answer covered that. I will try again. God can be said to be responisble for the actions of what he creates. And God is the only one with foreknowledge of what the unintended consequences will be. When I create a problem, I often don't see what the consequences will be, but God does. Thus, because HE knows what Satan will do in the future, and He goes ahead and creates Satan anyway, how can that not fit Isaiah 45:7? That is my answer, if you don't understand it I am sorry.

If you bioengineer a plague that kills millions and you know that it will do it, but you release the virus anyway, it does not good to say that the damage is the fault of the virus, not your fault. if you can't discern the analogy between this and the situation of God creating Satan, then we have nothing to talk about further.

Most folk believe Isaiah refers to the end times and not Genesis,

Actually, yours is the deterministic viewpoint because it necessitates God creating Satan to be evil, instead of doing what you describe here, and allowing such deviation to be possible. Again, nothing about free will necessitates that evil will follow.

You use a funny definition of deterministic. I didn't say God was forced to create Satan, I said God foreknew what Satan would do, and created him anyway. God did have a choice in the matter--could have not made him, BUT HE DID ANYWAY WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.

This is why I left TW, too many people don't actually listen to what the argument is. No where did I say God was forced to create Satan. I said precisely the opposite.

This doesn't address anything I've said at all.

It was meant to further the discussion and explain why free will is tied to a flawed nature which brings forth natural evil. I think this confirms that you haven't read the philosophical literature I mentioned.

Evolution necessitates a creation built on the evil of the last enemy which is death. The Bible says God created a "very good" creation, not an evil one. There is also the fact that only God Himself is perfect, yet He called the finished creation very good, which necessitates that it was free from moral evil, and as close as possible as any created thing can get to perfection.

I would say Adam and Eve were not subject to death, the animals were. Adam and Eve gave up their special circumstance when they sinned. Animals never were given the opportunity to sin and thus never had the gift of eternal life that Adam and Eve had.

Evolution requires the death of the unfit to work, and thus requires evil to operate. Animal death is not what God intended, and in the future he will do away with it so that even what are considered obligate carnivores no longer eat meat. Just like they were originally designed to be according to Genesis 1.

Isaiah 11:6-8New International Version (NIV)

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.*” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants*, I now give you everything.

You can have the last word, as you've not been dealing with what I've said so far at all.

*Same phrase used for both plants being given to animals, and how plants were given to mankind for food. They are to be understood the same, that animals were originally intended to be vegetarian like humans were. If you say interpretation is subjective again, I'll take it to mean that you agree with me, since that's my subjective interpretation of your words.

None of those verses say animals had eternal life. Please point it out, oh, I see I get the last word. Thanks

[grmorton]

Glenn, have you asked other evangelical TE's about Balaam's donkey? I think most would agree with you that it was a real miracle. The main miracles that you accept and they don't are in Gen 1-11; Balaam was much later.

I've been struck that a couple of my ASA TE friends (Denis Lamoureux and Bethany Sollereder) are charismatic, which I have a hard time reconciling with science. I discussed this with Bethany last weekend. She has no problem with a personal God who can intervene in our lives for salvation, also bestowing charismatic gifts in the present day.

I think it is overly simplistic to characterize evangelical TE's as simply denying miracles. Some of them may accept more present-day miracles than some of the rest of us, in fact. I think the issue is more a matter of interpretation of Gen 1-11.

I asked many academics on ASA and no one would admit to believing in floating ax heads, talking snakes or balaam's donkey. Sorry Kirk, this was covered above. I suspect that the academics at the ASA were afraid of their jobs if they answered yes publically.

[Cerebrum123]

None of those verses say animals had eternal life. Please point it out, oh, I see I get the last word. Thanks

I forgot about that while writing a reply just now. Oops.

I won't post* it, but I do want to point out one thing though. I wasn't trying to say you believe that God was forced to create Satan. I was trying to say that the view you describe necessitates God creating Satan in such a way that he was bound to do evil. Basically, a kind of hyper Calvinist approach to foreknowledge(which is a deterministic view btw).

What you describe so far has meant that there is no real free will for man, none for Satan, and that God takes the blame for all evil in the world since He created it after all.

I'm not always the best when it comes to wording for clarity, and I don't like being misrepresented either. That's why I finished this part of the response to post. I didn't want to leave looking like I had purposely misrepresented you. Especially since that is not my intent, and I've encountered it myself far too often.

Sorry about writing this extra post. I hope you understand.

*It feels like a waste of energy to delete it. I've saved it just in case there is ever another time I get into a discussion on this.

[shunyadragon]

If one looks at some of quantum's effects, backward causation may be possible, whereby our actions influence Adam and Eve as much as their actions influence us. Consider that if you look at a photon passing by a galaxy 2 billion years away, and you use particle detectors, you will see the photon go on one side or the other of the galaxy. But a person using wave detection equipment standing beside you will see the photon wave going on both sides of the galaxy. Our choice of which equipment with which to view the photon determines the photons behavior 2 billion years ago. There is a weird connectedness
with the past.

I thought I would revisit this post for you view of 'weird connectedness,' that you describe where events of the present by photons and humans effect the events of the past. This in and of itself needs more explanation. I am familiar with some 'out there' interpretations of some of the unexplained observations in Quantum Mechanics, but nothing that would lead to these conclusions.

I do not believe that the discussion on photons, ie 'connectedness of natural events,' have any relationship with the connectedness between the Original Sin and Fall of Adam and Eve. If anything relating the chain of natural events to the chain of human events resonates more with the Baha'i view of events. The evidence of the chain of events of human evolution is not consistent nor compatible with the events described in Genesis and interpreted in Christian beliefs.

The Jewish understanding of Genesis has more parallels to the Baha'i understanding of Genesis.

[grmorton]

I forgot about that while writing a reply just now. Oops.

I won't post* it, but I do want to point out one thing though. I wasn't trying to say you believe that God was forced to create Satan. I was trying to say that the view you describe necessitates God creating Satan in such a way that he was bound to do evil. Basically, a kind of hyper Calvinist approach to foreknowledge(which is a deterministic view btw).

What you describe so far has meant that there is no real free will for man, none for Satan, and that God takes the blame for all evil in the world since He created it after all.

I'm not always the best when it comes to wording for clarity, and I don't like being misrepresented either. That's why I finished this part of the response to post. I didn't want to leave looking like I had purposely misrepresented you. Especially since that is not my intent, and I've encountered it myself far too often.

Sorry about writing this extra post. I hope you understand.

*It feels like a waste of energy to delete it. I've saved it just in case there is ever another time I get into a discussion on this.

Well, I had a well written reply and just lost it. I will try again.

First off I am about as far from Calvinism as I can be. I tend to Arminism. Thanks for the clarification of what you were trying to say, but you have absolutely misunderstood almost everything I think I wrote.

I think the reason I am not a Calvinist is because if God is in control of everything, then he is in control of the sins I commit everyday, and he is an autocrat, not allowing me to deviate from the sin he has me do. That is the problem with the determinism of Calvin. It is why I utterly reject it. In determinism, be it theological or materialistic, there is no choice of the objects in the universe except to obey what the God, or laws of physics require.

I note that you focused on foreknowledge. I do believe that God knows where the universe is heading and it is seen in the plans he made for the future at creation. God knew that Christ would be crucified evilly and did it anyway

I think you miss a couple of Biblical examples where God did exactly what you say He doesn't do. The most ultimate evil in history was the crucifixion of the Innocent Christ Jesus. That evil was planned for by God at the creation of the universe.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Now, God planned and caused this evil at the foundation of the universe. But God did turn that evil to our good.

The second example is of Joseph, who, speaking of Joseph's sale into 30 years of slavery, told his brothers, you meant it for evil God meant it for good.

Now, Joseph didn't say God had no part of the sale, Joseph accepted that it was God's plan. Joseph was innocent and paid for it, the very definition of injustice, and he paid that penalty again, with Potipher's wife.

Because of these two planned evil events, I find the argument that God wouldn't use evolution because it is evil to be weak, and unbiblical.

[grmorton]

I thought I would revisit this post for you view of 'weird connectedness,' that you describe where events of the present by photons and humans effect the events of the past. This in and of itself needs more explanation. I am familiar with some 'out there' interpretations of some of the unexplained observations in Quantum Mechanics, but nothing that would lead to these conclusions.

I do not believe that the discussion on photons, ie 'connectedness of natural events,' have any relationship with the connectedness between the Original Sin and Fall of Adam and Eve. If anything relating the chain of natural events to the chain of human events resonates more with the Baha'i view of events. The evidence of the chain of events of human evolution is not consistent nor compatible with the events described in Genesis and interpreted in Christian beliefs.

The Jewish understanding of Genesis has more parallels to the Baha'i understanding of Genesis.

I will cite John Wheeler's words, he was the physicist who coined the term 'black hole'.

"The delayed choice experiment became possible thanks to the speed of computers which can choose randomly when to activate the detectors between the double slit and the screen. The result is that this choice effects the way in which the photon has gone through the slit (wave/particle), and that this effect operates backwards in time. The first two experiments which verified this model were performed independently in the 1980s in the University of Maryland and Munich, Germany. These experiments showed that the decision to activate the detectors affected the nature of photons backwards in time"

"Wheeler, noted that it is possible to devise a double slit experiment at the cosmic level using light coming from quasars and a galaxy which operates as a gravitational lens on the way to Earth. This light would generate an interference pattern showing that light has travelled as waves. But if a measurement would be performed before the screen on which the interference pattern takes form, the pattern would dissolve and the photons would change from waves into particles. In other words our choice on how to measure the light coming from a quasar influences the nature of the light (particle/quasar) emitted 10 billion years ago. According to Wheeler this experiment would show that retrocausal effects operate at the quantum level."

Antonella Vannini e Ulisse Di Corpo, "Quantum Mechanics (QM), Syntropy 2007, 1, pag. 119-129 p. 127
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2007-eng-1-2.pdf

[Cerebrum123]

Well, I had a well written reply and just lost it. I will try again.

First off I am about as far from Calvinism as I can be. I tend to Arminism. Thanks for the clarification of what you were trying to say, but you have absolutely misunderstood almost everything I think I wrote.

I think the reason I am not a Calvinist is because if God is in control of everything, then he is in control of the sins I commit everyday, and he is an autocrat, not allowing me to deviate from the sin he has me do. That is the problem with the determinism of Calvin. It is why I utterly reject it. In determinism, be it theological or materialistic, there is no choice of the objects in the universe except to obey what the God, or laws of physics require.

I note that you focused on foreknowledge. I do believe that God knows where the universe is heading and it is seen in the plans he made for the future at creation. God knew that Christ would be crucified evilly and did it anyway

I think you miss a couple of Biblical examples where God did exactly what you say He doesn't do. The most ultimate evil in history was the crucifixion of the Innocent Christ Jesus. That evil was planned for by God at the creation of the universe.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Now, God planned and caused this evil at the foundation of the universe. But God did turn that evil to our good.

The second example is of Joseph, who, speaking of Joseph's sale into 30 years of slavery, told his brothers, you meant it for evil God meant it for good.

Now, Joseph didn't say God had no part of the sale, Joseph accepted that it was God's plan. Joseph was innocent and paid for it, the very definition of injustice, and he paid that penalty again, with Potipher's wife.

Because of these two planned evil events, I find the argument that God wouldn't use evolution because it is evil to be weak, and unbiblical.

When you're actively giving God responsibility for all evil, your effectively taking free will out of the equation. This means God would be directly engaging in evil. This also means He must be controlling people in such a way that they have no free will. At least not any that's worth calling "free will", if you are going to assign the blame of their actions to God anyway.

There is a huge difference between actively engaging in evil, and using what evil people have done for good. Using evolution to create, while calling it all good is an act of evil in itself.

Isaiah 5:20Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

I know I should have been good and not responded, but I'm out of here after this. Think about what you've said. You are actively assigning evil acts to God. You are making God Himself evil by what you say. This is not a small matter theologically. You are literally calling good evil, and evil good. God is perfectly good, to say He does evil is very, very wrong for a Christian. If you're going to continue calling God evil, I can't stop you, but don't say it's Biblical.

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

2 Samuel 22:31 “As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

2 Corinthians 6:13-15New International Version (NIV)

13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

Warning Against Idolatry
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

1 John 1:4-6New International Version (NIV)

4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

Light and Darkness, Sin and Forgiveness
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

Psalm 45:7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

[shunyadragon]

I will cite John Wheeler's words, he was the physicist who coined the term 'black hole'.

"The delayed choice experiment became possible thanks to the speed of computers which can choose randomly when to activate the detectors between the double slit and the screen. The result is that this choice effects the way in which the photon has gone through the slit (wave/particle), and that this effect operates backwards in time. The first two experiments which verified this model were performed independently in the 1980s in the University of Maryland and Munich, Germany. These experiments showed that the decision to activate the detectors affected the nature of photons backwards in time"

"Wheeler, noted that it is possible to devise a double slit experiment at the cosmic level using light coming from quasars and a galaxy which operates as a gravitational lens on the way to Earth. This light would generate an interference pattern showing that light has travelled as waves. But if a measurement would be performed before the screen on which the interference pattern takes form, the pattern would dissolve and the photons would change from waves into particles. In other words our choice on how to measure the light coming from a quasar influences the nature of the light (particle/quasar) emitted 10 billion years ago. According to Wheeler this experiment would show that retrocausal effects operate at the quantum level."

Antonella Vannini e Ulisse Di Corpo, "Quantum Mechanics (QM), Syntropy 2007, 1, pag. 119-129 p. 127
http://www.sintropia.it/english/2007-eng-1-2.pdf

I was aware of this and qualify this work as Quantum world stuff and the result is inconclusive, and the cause effect relationship of time/space. The quantum World is beyond our time/space macro world of our universe, and these observations were on the edge of this world. I do not believe you can transfer this behavior logically nor scientifically to our time/space world. It is too speculative. You may on the other hand be equating the spiritual world of souls with the Quantum world as being timeless.

It actually sounds familiar to the relationship between souls concerning sin, good acts, and prayer in the LDS church.

[grmorton]

I was aware of this and qualify this work as Quantum world stuff and the result is inconclusive, and the cause effect relationship of time/space. The quantum World is beyond our time/space macro world of our universe, and these observations were on the edge of this world. I do not believe you can transfer this behavior logically nor scientifically to our time/space world. It is too speculative. You may on the other hand be equating the spiritual world of souls with the Quantum world as being timeless.

It actually sounds familiar to the relationship between souls concerning sin, good acts, and prayer in the LDS church.

We will have to disagree, Quantum IS our world and has been observed macroscopically.But no point in trying to go on.

[tabibito]

Well, I had a well written reply and just lost it. I will try again.

First off I am about as far from Calvinism as I can be. I tend to Arminism. Thanks for the clarification of what you were trying to say, but you have absolutely misunderstood almost everything I think I wrote.

I think the reason I am not a Calvinist is because if God is in control of everything, then he is in control of the sins I commit everyday, and he is an autocrat, not allowing me to deviate from the sin he has me do. That is the problem with the determinism of Calvin. It is why I utterly reject it. In determinism, be it theological or materialistic, there is no choice of the objects in the universe except to obey what the God, or laws of physics require.

I note that you focused on foreknowledge. I do believe that God knows where the universe is heading and it is seen in the plans he made for the future at creation. God knew that Christ would be crucified evilly and did it anyway

I think you miss a couple of Biblical examples where God did exactly what you say He doesn't do. The most ultimate evil in history was the crucifixion of the Innocent Christ Jesus. That evil was planned for by God at the creation of the universe.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Now, God planned and caused this evil at the foundation of the universe. But God did turn that evil to our good.

The second example is of Joseph, who, speaking of Joseph's sale into 30 years of slavery, told his brothers, you meant it for evil God meant it for good.

Now, Joseph didn't say God had no part of the sale, Joseph accepted that it was God's plan. Joseph was innocent and paid for it, the very definition of injustice, and he paid that penalty again, with Potipher's wife.

Because of these two planned evil events, I find the argument that God wouldn't use evolution because it is evil to be weak, and unbiblical.

IMO
The idea that God knows the future is a precept oversimplified to the point of being dangerous. Events do not proceed in an undeviating line from the beginning of time til its end. There are many possible futures, and God knows them all. In the ordinary course, he does not intervene. He knows what is inevitable, and he knows when it becomes inevitable - a given event may be ineluctable from the time of creation, or it may be locked scant nano-seconds before it occurs. God knows all that is and all that can be, but he does not know what will be until it will be (at which point it becomes "is"). Even this concept is oversimplified, but it approaches the realities adequately.

It is said that God's will is irresistible, and I agree that it is so, but again, the precept is oversimplified. His will is wholly resistible unless he chooses to impose it. God wills that all be saved - and many are lost. That fact adequately demonstrates the point.
Again IMO.

[grmorton]

When you're actively giving God responsibility for all evil, your effectively taking free will out of the equation. This means God would be directly engaging in evil. This also means He must be controlling people in such a way that they have no free will. At least not any that's worth calling "free will", if you are going to assign the blame of their actions to God anyway.

You clearly don't understand the analogy I used earlier. If you bioengineer a plague that would kill millions, and go ahead and release it, you are morally responsible for what it does. You are also legally responsible for what it does. But you don't actively insert the virus into each and every victim.
It seems to me that you are making the logical argument,
god sets Satan in motion
therefore God causes individual acts of evil.
That is a nonsequitur

There is a huge difference between actively engaging in evil, and using what evil people have done for good. Using evolution to create, while calling it all good is an act of evil in itself.

lol, since I believe that God could call this universe good as in the best logically possible world, means that I have just committed a horrendous act of evil. I think we have little to discuss. Hold your beliefs tight, and don't let your children go into geology.

All the other stuff you wrote reminds me of when Carl Froede called me son of Satan. Problem is you seem to think that salvation is dependant upon anti-evolutionary beliefs