Interesting article.
Personally I don’t see humans as distinct from nature, but an expression of nature. So we have as much free will as nature does. My thinking is along the lines of the free will theorem by John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen.
One problem with the best of all possible worlds is that it implies a limited God. After all a truly omni-cubed God wouldn’t have to make compromises in its designs.

Really enjoyed the post. I think the point about God creating nature that has the freedom to create is very well-put and indicative of God’s creative nature – the outpouring of God’s creative love results in a Creation that can also be creative. That’s a pretty remarkable realization, and one that I think is often over looked by those in the creationist camp.
I do take issue with the argument that evil is the natural result of an existence marked by free will. I think it’s an essential aspect of Christian theology that the sinful nature of humanity is the cause of our penchant for evil, but this is not the result of the way we were made by God. (I’m still working out how the Fall fits with an evolved humanity, but I think the doctrine of sin holds in either case.) God did not make us with a predisposition to disobey Him. We chose to be disobedient, a choice made possible by our free will, but that choice to sin was not a necessary outcome of our existence. God did not make us and then doom us to sinfulness.
I believe the same must hold true for the natural world. While it is true that a creative natural world has the ability to bring about terrible things from its creative freedom, I don’t believe that the God who is pure goodness would have made it and doomed it to evil. Is there a “sinfulness” to nature as there is a sinfulness to humanity? If so, how does this come about?
Of course, there’s also the argument that there’s a difference between the moral evil of humanity and the “physical evil” of the natural world. Are we placing moral judgment on a created order that has no moral sense? Are we seeing aspects of nature that seem morally reprehensible but are, in fact, simply part of the way creatures survive, and imposing a moral judgment where none should be made?

I like Behe’s take on P. falciparum and humanity. Apparently neither can actually evolve fast enough on its own, so the pointless stalemate of malarial resistance to our immune systems and our own immunity are all due to god (which he makes explicit in various places).
The mere fact that it looks like purposeless evolution is just a coincidence, one of those many grand accidents that IDists believe in.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

It seems to me that just about every example of “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity” is involved in the “problem of evil”.
The bacterial flagellum, the “delightfully cute, little motor” on bacteria, is part of what can make bacteria more virulent. Behe, in his most recent book makes reference to features of the malaria parasite as examples of things that are designed. Only a moment’s reflection would tell anyone that “the eye” is often part of what makes predators into efficient killing machines, or else helps prey in escaping from predators. Giving both predators and prey eyes, if anything, is even worse than giving them only to prey – it has the appearance of favoring the “sport of combat” more than the predator (or the prey). Which returns me to the “irreducible complexity” of the immune system, the partner in the sport of bacteria (equipped with flagella) vs. mammals.

Karl,
You wrote, “…the gift of creativity that God bestowed on the creation is theologically analogous to the gift of freedom God bestowed on us. Both we and the creation have freedom.”
What does this mean? Does gravity have the freewill to decide that it’s going to let me off the hook when I jump off the building? Does electricity decide what form it’s going to take when it leaves the socket? Can it decide not to energize my frig? Don’t our physical laws operate in deterministic ways and isn’t this fact the basis of science and predictability? Aren’t you re-formulating science in a pagan, pantheistic way?
There is also another question that arises. While it is clear that we humans are part of the creation and distinct from God, it remains unclear as to whether or not the laws of the physical world are. There is an unfounded naturalistic assumption that they are unintelligent and independent from God, but it is just as likely that these laws are actually a part of the mind of God.
You then wrote, “In exactly the same way, less the moral dimension, when nature’s freedom leads to the evolution of a pernicious killing machine, God is ‘off the hook.’”
The case you wish to make is clear: Because we cannot hold God accountable for freewill-man-made evil, we also can’t hold Him accountable for freewill-nature-made evil. However, this case is also seriously flawed. Although it is patently clear that we have freewill, what evidence can you present that nature has the same kind of freewill? Of course, you acknowledge that nature cannot be held culpable as can we. But doesn’t this admission reflect the fact that nature and humanity are separated by light-years—the very thing you’re trying to deny?
Your reasoning begs the question, “Are you truly an evolutionist? Do you believe in RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection as evolution’s guiding principles?” If so, then you don’t believe that God has provided any guidance. What then does this say about your claim for a natural CREATIVE force and what does this force entail? What does it mean that it is free? And how can it be free when nature is deterministic?
You must also rethink your claim that God’s glory is revealed in the way He created through evolution, since evolution is unequivocal in stating that the entire process was natural and not the result of an intelligent creative process.
If instead God created through intermediary deterministic forces, then God determined these forces and is directly responsible for their implications — something Demski understandably claims as the unavoidable conclusion.
In light of the above problems, the Biblical answer of the Fall remains the best explanation for the advent of evil, despite your claims that evil predated man.

I was looking at these blog posts as part of the Environmental Symposium under the patronage of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (called the “Green Patriarch”). I was bit surprised that there haven’t been any references about either the forthcoming symposium next month or on any of the perspectives of the Ecumenical Patriarch. He was named at the top of Beliefnet’s Environmental Spiritual Leaders list and also named by Time Magazine in its top 100 list of Leaders and Revolutionaries for his work in the environment. Will there be any plans for coverage or even a guest blog given that this event is happening in New Orleans next month? See: http://www.usvisit2009.org and http://www.patriarchate.org

Are we saying that the entirety of the animalian and non-animalian world is endowed with freedom? If so, doesn’t this imply that everything has intentions, which means that everything has a mind, which is panpsychism?

I’m with Kyle B.
Martin Gardner’s book is incredible. More scientists should read it.

Karl,
I am delighted that BioLogos is opening a dialogue between science and evangelical Christianity. Thank you for your efforts.
It seems to me that suffering induced by natural causes is an integral part of evolution and ecology. The mechanisms of evolution such as random mutation invariably lead to suffering. The random mutations that give rise to genetic variation upon which natural selection can act are the same that give rise to many human genetic diseases such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis. Complex traits responsible for the efficacy of predation and parasitism have also evolved. Natural process required for life on earth, such as plate tectonics, also result in a degree of suffering.
If I understand you correctly, you view the process of evolution as a secondary cause of God’s creative activity. God has bestowed upon the creation the ability to evolve. Did God not foresee when He bestowed this ability upon creation that suffering would be the inevitable consequence? God has given nature the inevitable ability to generate suffering as a consequence of mechanisms that are integral to the way in which nature operates. If creations freedom is amoral where does the moral responsibility, if any, lie?
As you rightly point out, Christians have grappled with this problem for as long as there have been Christians. Perhaps this is the way it has to be, the best of all possible worlds. But, perhaps another helpful perspective, as opposed to seeking to find an argument that allows a sovereign God “off the hook,” is to remember that God is able to enter into our suffering. This is in no better place illustrated than on the cross. In addition, God is able to take suffering and make something good come of it (Rom 8:28, John 9:2-3). Perhaps like Job we are never told the reason why we suffer, but are only reminded that God remains sovereign throughout our sufferings?
The classic paradox arsing from the presence of evil and suffering in the world is that either God is not all loving or that God is not all powerful. Perhaps this can be resolved by stating that God does not display the sort of love that removes His children from harms way but rather the sort of love that enters into their suffering with them and has the ability to “redeem” it for their good?

This is a side argument. The real question is can life spontaneously come ito existence and then become more and more complex until it can comment on a blog?
Warm pond + lightning = amino acids. Then a code (?RNA from ?space or who knows. Anyway a code is esential to order the amino acids) etc etc etc — until….. humans, who KNOW they are going to die.
How can people believe this rubbish?
Oh, now I get it. You said: “The contribution evolution makes…..is the remarkable discovery that nature has built-in creative powers”
You are a pantheist.

For possibly the first time in my life, I find myself in agreement with Dembski. God can’t use evolution to escape responsibility because, being omniscient and omnipotent, He:
A: Knew this sort of thing was going to happen.
B: Has the power to stop it.
If God exists, He bears the responsibility. Not that there’s anything unusual about that. Locally, we had a couple let a garbage fire get away from them and it burned down a lot of forest and several houses. The law holds them responsible, even though it wasn’t their exact fire that did the damage, it was a “descendent” of their fire. I see no reason to let God off the hook if we’re going to blame them. At least they had a chance of burning their garbage without doing damage. That was never the case with any Being who implemented evolution.
I don’t accept “freedom” as an excuse either. I may personally be free to hurt people, but I don’t have to be. I’m not free to drink syrup of ipecac. If I try, I’ll vomit profusely. I don’t feel that my freedom has been impinged to any great extent by this restriction.
God could have given me and every human being the same vomit attacks every time we though of doing harm if He had wanted to, but he didn’t.
As for “freedom” for the universe, an omniscient and omnipotent God should be able to prevent that freedom from causing evil too.
Guilty as charged.
By the way, Dembski is apparently also wrong. From the reviews I’ve read, his new book gets God off the hook through some sort of time travel. Great idea, just throw away logic and God is innocent. Bah!
The idea that God doesn’t exist, on the other hand, solves all of the problems in one swoop and accounts for what we observe in the universe perfectly.

Anyone interested can read the full text of Darwin’s letter to Gray – and more than 6000 other letters that he wrote and received – on the Darwin Correspondence Project website. This particular letter is at:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-2814.html
The correspondence with Gray is also the subject of a dramatisation commissioned by the Project. Called “Re:Design” it was written by Craig Baxter and the script is freely available for not-for-profit performance. See:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/99/83/

DJMullen,
You wrote, “The idea that God doesn’t exist, on the other hand, solves all of the problems in one swoop and accounts for what we observe in the universe perfectly.”
This “solution” opens the door to even worse problems:
1. Removing God removes any basis for a coherent system of morality. Without anything higher, each one of us becomes a court-of-last-resort without any higher truth to mediate between the differences.
2. Without God, absolute moral truth must be arbitrarily invented, since there is no way to go from the “is” of science, feelings and observations to the “ought” of a higher moral authority. Consequently, our feelings and inclinations will inevitably rise to usurp the “ought” for themselves—not a pretty state of affairs.

I don’t know why this has to be so complicated. I’m not saying the following is true but it is simple and self-consistent.
God did what most parents with nearly grown rebellious children do. He “cut the apron strings” and let us go out on our own. My parents called it “learning the hard way”.
In Eden there was no death or destruction. There was no random mutation and natural selection. God stopped it. A consequence of inheriting the perfect world to manage for ourselves was random mutation and natural selection no longer being held in check. All the nasty critters in the world devolved from the original creation. Evolution is a misnomer. Devolution is more apt.
It appears we’re on the cusp of learning (the hard way of course because we’re bullheaded know-it-all children) how to hold random mutation and natural selection in check once again. Even better, it appears that we’ll soon learn how to repair what devolution hath wrought. God gave us the ability, through science, to restore the world. An old saying is apt here: “God helps those who help themselves.” It’s been a long tough road but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Through genetic engineering the lion will once again eat straw as the oxen, the wolf will lie with the lamb, and there will be no death or destruction in the kingdom. So let’s stop crying over spilt milk and get on with it.

“In Eden there was no death or destruction.”

Then how could there be reproduction if there is no death? Wouldn’t it get a tad crowded?

For a more nearly Manichean view in ID, see Michael Behe’s recent book “The Edge of Evolution.” One finds this on pp 237-238:
“Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.” (Italics added)
Can’t get much clearer than that.

Daniel Mann, you go to the ought of morality because each of us is mutually dependent upon the other. So the system of morality is arrived at by consensus with my fellow man and enforced collectively.
Dave Springer, you’re making the argument that the post author just refuted. The age of fossils provides evidence that predation, disease, and parasitism predates the arrival of humans by a long time.

That was an excellent post. Thanks so much.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that this is not at odds with the belief that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass.”
That is, at the very least, the evolution of horrible creatures could have been prevented by God. But so could Judas’ betrayal have been nipped at the bud by divine fiat. No Christian would say that God is morally responsible for Judas’ betrayal. The argument here, if I understand it, is to apply the same to nature.
Nature, of course, is not a free moral agent. While Judas is responsible for his actions, nobody is morally responsible for the Malaria parasite. And in neither case is God responsible.

Heddle wrote
Nature, of course, is not a free moral agent. While Judas is responsible for his actions, nobody is morally responsible for the Malaria parasite. And in neither case is God responsible.
Behe was not referring to “Nature,” but to an intelligent agent with the knowledge, skills, and intention necessary to design the malaria parasite. Later in that chapter he waffles about the identify of that designer, but it is not blind Nature.
Now, does Heddle hold that agent morally responsible for the pain, suffering, and death that malaria has caused? If not, why not?

RBH,
Not sure what you are talking about there, or why you are asking me. The Giberson article does not mention Behe. My comment does not mention Behe. I have read very little Behe has written–and I did not have Behe in mind when I posted my comment.

“In Eden there was no death or destruction. There was no random mutation and natural selection. God stopped it.”
Well, I guess it’s a good thing that God stopped it. I hate serpents, especially the procreation of talking, cunning ones with evil intentions.
Eden wasn’t perfect. That is yet to come.

It is always interesting to see a Darwinist pontificate on what God did or did not do correctly. We are suppose to consider arguments from someone that thinks we are here by accident.
In Darwin’s world, as an accident of nature, Hitler cannot be evil because the world created itself by accident and humans are an extension of the first accident and all accidents thereafter. Hitler believed he was helping evolution by creating the master race.
The Darwinist believes the mind cannot truly reason and therefore whatever we do cannot be considered good or evil.
There are those among the Darwinists that don’t believe we have free will, only a few really exceptional people can think real thoughts or have real opinions, people like Dawkins. He has special thoughts and he, in his infinite wisdom, hates even the thought that someone might believe in God. Dawkins knows what is best for we little people.
I remember reading from typical Darwinists (It may have been Dawkins) that God doesn’t even know how best to design the human eye or was it God couldn’t have designed human eyes because the design is so poorly done. I think it was both.
The reason I can’t be sure is that a Darwinist truth is like Obama’s truth, he tells you what he thinks you want to hear and then proceeds to do the direct opposite. If there is a God you cannot trust people like Dawkins or Obama. If there is no God there cannot be morality or ethics and we would all be like Dawkins and Obama. In that case, there can be no good or evil just what is best for me. Does the word psychopath ring a bell.

MH
The author made a claim that predation preceded humans.
I’m reminded of when the consensus was that black swans didn’t exist.
If Eden was an island in an Ediacaran ocean how likely is it that we could find fossil remains of it today?
Darwinian faithful speak about the incompleteness of the fossil record when it comes to missing transitionals but I guess when it comes to missing humans it is quite complete.
It doesn’t work that way in a fair debate. Either we both get to argue that the fossil record is incomplete or neither of us do. Takes yo pick.

“If Eden was an island in an Ediacaran ocean how likely is it that we could find fossil remains of it today?”
So now Eden was an island! And you know this because….?
And you haven’t answered my question: how can there be reproduction without death? If Eden was an island the overcrowding would be even worse, right? And who needs eternal parasites?
btw, we do have a nice record of fossil humans and pre-humans. Please visit a museum.

In this discussion, don’t forget the matter of complexity. In any system, the part must sacrifice its ‘free-will’ for the good of the whole. The macrophage must die so that Frank can live. The cells of the limb bud must die so that fingers can be carved from it. Maintaining such complexity requires the presence of control agents with targets to hit – targets which will not ‘like’ being shut down. Is the proper level to ask questions about evil, the organism or the cell? Or is the proper level – the ecosystem? The role of the predator is to allow the filling of ecological space, to maintain biodiversity. The role of the parasitoid wasp is control a SPECIFIC target species so that it does not over-run the earth. These are goods, not evils. If there is no death, there can be no birth,, because all the world’s biomass will end up sequestered in the herbivores. No plants left to eat, because no more carbon is available. But nothing can die, and nothing can move because all the energy for ATP is tied up – thus, a world filled with furry statues like the garden of the Narnian white witch. When a species has accomplished the assigned task of increasing and filling the earth, then what does it do?
And remember that Paul did not give us an answer to the problem of evil and the sovereignty of God – he just said – who are you to talk back? This is a mystery, and God is in charge. Rom. 9:14-23. But if there is no God out there, there is no point in being indignant about how He runs the place. There is no problem because there is no good cause to shoulder the blame for the evil. But if there is no problem, then the ‘problem of evil’is an invalid reason to reject the God hypothesis.

MH,
According to you, “So the system of morality is arrived at by consensus with my fellow man and enforced collectively.”
If morality is just a matter of consensus, I’ll just find some new home-boys to hang with who share my feelings. Clearly, such a morality is arbitrary and has no grounds to inspire what we should do. Should I risk my life because the majority thinks I should?
And what happens when there is dissension among the consensus? How do they resolve it? By appealing to the majority? If there isn’t a higher truth, then there is nothing ultimate to which to appeal.

Hello Karl,
While the thrust of your piece is clearly an apologetic for the wonders of natural selection, I also noticed your claim that God also works through what you call “primary causes,” and that these seem to be something beyond the usual mechanisms of naturalistic evolution (time, chance and undirected natural law).
Given this, please share with us a particular example from biology that supports your assertion that “God works through… _primary_ causes.” (emphasis in the original) Furthermore, can you demonstrate this scientifically, and how would you defend this claim against a god-of-the-gaps criticism?

More on primary and secondary causes…
If you recognize this primary/secondary distinction—in a bit of an ironic twist—you end up agreeing in principle with ID. All the ID advocates I’ve ever read hold that natural (secondary) causes do all kinds of things and effect all sorts of change—they just can’t create the complex, specified information that we know to exist in various intricate biological structures. Recognizing the difference and attempting to formulate a formal method for doing so is what ID is about.
If you don’t recognize it, there’s little practical difference between you and Richard Dawkins—unguided natural processes explain everything. Why append God onto this world view when he is either uninvolved, impotent or doesn’t exist at all?

Just to keep it simple for those that make simple statements that specific, informational, intelligent code is created by natural means. No! it cannot be created by natural means!
Now you are suppose to say that the specific, informational, intelligent code found in the living cell can be created by using this scientific method. Then describe that method so other scientists can try to duplicate that test.
It has been scientifically shown that the code structure actually exists in the DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA, genes, nucleotides, ribosomes and the like, so the problem is not Dembski’s, but the Darwinists to show that they can prove that such information can be created by natural means.
We know using the scientific principles including probability theory that such information cannot be created naturally by accident in a trillion years, certainly not possible in 3 or 4 billion years.
So your task is to prove those scientific mathematical theories are in fact wrong and demonstrate how billions of bits of meaningful, specific, functional code can be created by accident. For example: demonstrate how the “Signature in the Cell” or “Edge of Evolution” can be produced by watching dirt, water, ink, trees and all elements as they accidentally come together and form a book with the same message with the same words, correct spelling and grammar.
Then you can prepare to recieve your Noble Prize.

Giberson’s theological argument against design is basically:
1.If evil organisms such as the malaria parasite are designed, then only God can be the designer.
2.God would never design such evil organisms.
3.Therefore evil organisms were not designed.
So Giberson has used a theological argument to prevent a potential empirical conclusion of design. In that case, his argument can honestly be labeled a “science stopper.” Theistic evolutionists often criticize ID proponents for being theologically biased. Yet it is obvious from this argument that quite the contrary is the case.
But if we analyze Giberson’s argument, we will find a problem: evil organisms exist. What brought about their existence? Giberson rejects Satan, since this would make him a “co-creator” with God. Yet Giberson is willing to allow Nature to be a “co-creator” with God. On what theological basis (Biblical or otherwise) does Giberson rule out Satan, yet rule in Nature?
If Giberson wants to argue that only God is the author of life, fair enough. But once life exists, what excludes others from tampering with it? We humans are able to tamper with it, creating genetically modified products. If Satan exists, what is to prevent him from also tampering with life, and genetically modifying non-evil organisms into evil organisms?
If evil organisms are designed, then Satanic design seems to me to be the more acceptable conclusion, as I have argued here:
http://telicthoughts.com/satanic-design/

Not sure why it reads “Your Name” instead of “Bilbo”

I could not find a link to the afore-referenced article by Dembski. Could you please post the link?

Wyatt, did you mean this one:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darrell-falks-misshapen-theology-of-evolution/

I was attracted to the title of this thread and offer only one thought (at the moment). “Nasty” Nature preceeded the fall, therefore nature is only “nasty” from our perpective, or there was an agent for evil that pre-existed Man. Which of course there was. That timeline we have no clue about of course….

Dear Beaglelady
Why is the overpopulation of the garden so important to you?
“In Eden there was no death or destruction.”
Then how could there be reproduction if there is no death?
Wouldn’t it get a tad crowded?
The simple answer would be, they were thrown out of the garden, not much of an issue. If there was really a garden, we know nothing else about it, no details on the size etc. I’m seriously doubting it would have been the size of garden found in the back yard of a 21st century home. And couldn’t God simply have expanded the garden as necessary? All of this to say, why are you getting so hung up over the size of the garden in relation to reproduction? Of all questions concerning Genesis 1-11 I think overpopulation of the garden is rather miniscule.

Natural is mind blowing for us. We are know their important. But some one are always ignore that. They are not knowing their values. Every one are responsible for that. But some organization and people are working to save natural.