Door Number Two: The existence of evil is the Most Powerful Argument

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 28, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I discussed David Barash’s op-ed piece in the New York Timesreviewing the usual religious beliefs that motivate evolutionary thinking. Barash’s piece is not peculiar, it is standard evolutionary reasoning. For instance, another evolution professor, Jerry Coyne, responded today, in support of Barash’s arguments. Coyne explains that he agrees with Barash “100%” and adds a few additional comments of his own. Read more

Comments

Evolve says @12:
Total fail. Why do predators brutally kill their prey? Just like humans, all other life also fall ill and suffer without performing any “sin” nonsense. Why did the dinosaurs who thrived for 150 million years vanish suddenly? God decided enough is enough?! Nature is pregnant with ruthless opportunism – a fact that screams nobody is overseeing all this.
Which really proves my original point I made in my original post:
2) To criticise religion, you must do so from its own interpretations, not your own preconceptions
So, your argument here may be able to criticise your own perception of what a "god" should look like and behave, however you are the one who has totally failed on an attempt to criticise the God of the Bible if that is who you wish to criticise based on an evil and morality argument.
Romans 8:20-22 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
And yet, when redemption finally does come (to creation) and the curse on the earth is reversed, we will see a creation that appears more like it was originally intended before man's falleness:
Isaiah 11:6-9 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
So you can criticise the idea of a "god" who allows such things, but you cannot use your logic here to criticise the Judeo-Christian worldview because it has an explanation for your observations around us that give the appearance of "evil" and suffering everywhere. You can choose not to accept this explanation, fine, but you cannot say that what we observe does not fit with this worldview. You just do not subscribe to that worldview. Hence my original point which you have just proved in principle - you cannot criticise a worldview on your own standards when it claims different standards itself. I.e. the observed world around us is consistent with what the Bible says it should be with the characteristics of the God it claims to be true.Dr JDD_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Evolve:
ID has not shown design can only arise via an agent.
No one has shown that nature can produce design.
Everyday we witness design arising on its own by purely natural processes.
No, we haven't.
Humans developing from a single cell, a seed sprouting into a plant which grows into a tree, a shapeless chicken embryo taking the shape of a chicken…all these happen right before our eyes with NO supernatural intervention or design engineer as far as we can see.
THAT is your "reasoning"? Are you a baby?Joe_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

As well, I would like to know how reductive materialists explain the recent finding of 'spooky action at a distance' quantum entanglement in molecular biology Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit i.e. quantum entanglement cannot be reduced to a within space-time reductive materialistic explanation Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.phpbornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Evolve claims that embryological development is a 'natural' process,
ID has not shown design can only arise via an agent. Everyday we witness design arising on its own by purely natural processes. Humans developing from a single cell, a seed sprouting into a plant which grows into a tree, a shapeless chicken embryo taking the shape of a chicken…all these happen right before our eyes with NO supernatural intervention or design engineer as far as we can see. ID rests on the false premise that design must come from a designer. No, nature can produce design on its own as we see all around us on a daily basis.
Yet, contrary to what Evolve believes, reductive materialists cannot explain embryological development 'naturally',,, i.e. cannot explain how a single fertilized egg of a billion protein molecules transforms into a functional cohesive whole of trillions of cells, at a billion trillion protein molecules total, nobody has a firm clue how this occurs 'naturally'. In fact, reductive materialism, cannot explain the 'form' of DNA and proteins much less does it explain body plans
Neo-Darwinian evolution, i.e. reductive materialism, cannot explain the 'form' of DNA and proteins much less does it explain body plans https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/this-study-says-it-explains-our-high-facial-variability-but-it-is-a-tautology/#comment-515498 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Evolve states at 13, in regards to ID's minimal inference to intelligence: "But they still want to call ID science!!" Yet, as Evolve has just proven in his argument from evil at 12, Evolution is itself dependent on (twisted) Theistic metaphysics. i.e. 'God would not have done it that way!' Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 ,,, Moreover, as Plantinga and others have shown, naturalism is the 'anti-science' worldview in that naturalism epistemologically self-defeating. "Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness" Dr. Alvin Plantinga - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Evolve, and exactly how are you able to form this idea that the world is cruel and unjust in the first place if there is, as you hold in your materialist/atheist worldview, no real objective, transcendent, standard of good that has been departed from?
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
bornagain77_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

///I’ve always wondered what objective criterion of design the critics of ID use when they claim RS+NS is a “design” mimic./// ID has not shown design can only arise via an agent. Everyday we witness design arising on its own by purely natural processes. Humans developing from a single cell, a seed sprouting into a plant which grows into a tree, a shapeless chicken embryo taking the shape of a chicken...all these happen right before our eyes with NO supernatural intervention or design engineer as far as we can see. ID rests on the false premise that design must come from a designer. No, nature can produce design on its own as we see all around us on a daily basis.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

///God is believed to be the ID agent by many of us, but that may not necessarily be true. Don’t ask me what other agent comes to mind.I still can’t figure out – nor can any other fellow ID members. /// But they still want to call ID science!!Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

///Because they reject a God, they reject a standard of living or a moral code that we are obliged to keep to attain to God’s standard /// Total fail. Why do predators brutally kill their prey? Just like humans, all other life also fall ill and suffer without performing any “sin” nonsense. Why did the dinosaurs who thrived for 150 million years vanish suddenly? God decided enough is enough?! Nature is pregnant with ruthless opportunism - a fact that screams nobody is overseeing all this.Evolve_{September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Mung wrote
In order for Darwin to have done this, Darwin would have to have had an objective way to identify “God-like design.” I’ve always wondered what objective criterion of design the critics of ID use when they claim RS+NS is a “design” mimic.
Great observation, Mung! -QQuerius_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

The non-existence of anything at all is the most powerful argument for atheism.Mung_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

The bottom line is: evil = suffering Nobody likes to suffer But what if you agreed to it? Problem solved P.S. Reality is a lot more interesting that anyone's pedantic theoretical ideas of "good and evil." Really it isVishnu_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

The argument from complexity. As we all know, evolution dispelled this most powerful argument for God when Darwin showed that “design-like” features could arise from a purely naturalistic process.
There’s only one problem. That is a lie. What Coyne writes here is not an exaggeration, not a controversial point, not a questionable point, not an unsupported suggestion. There simply is no nice way to put it—this is a bald faced lie, period.
Let's call the that BIG LIE of evolution. In order for Darwin to have done this, Darwin would have to have had an objective way to identify "God-like design." I've always wondered what objective criterion of design the critics of ID use when they claim RS+NS is a "design" mimic.Mung_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

ba77 said
I’ve never understood why people think the argument from evil is such a strong argument for atheism.
It's extremely strong emotional rhetoric against theism, which I suppose is a form of argument. Logically, it's self-refuting nonsense.William J Murray_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

God is believed to be the ID agent by many of us, but that may not necessarily be true. Don't ask me what other agent comes to mind.I still can't figure out - nor can any other fellow ID members.the bystander_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Bible believing Creationists have an explanation for evil that has held up all these years. Coyne has an argument not against intelligent design, for it is not based on science, nor against creationism, for we have a valid explanation. It's an argument against theistic evolution, which we should all be pleased to be rid of.awstar_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

The argument regarding "evil" is certainly not a new one - despite the "New Atheists" thinking that they have come up with some novel insights into it. The problem is two-fold: 1) Definition of evil is non-standard (and impossible from a naturalistic view-point, but we will leave that aside for now) 2) To criticise religion, you must do so from its own interpretations, not your own preconceptions With regards to 1) where there are 2 types of evil often presented: firstly evil that man does to another this is a non-starter in a world where we were to accept free-will, for obvious logical reasons that even a juvenille could grasp. Secondly, with regards to natural disasters, illnesses and the like, the question remains to establish that these are truly evil which is certainly a point for contention and a false assumption to simply state they are. With regards to 2) you do not have to accept it, but if you are to criticse a religious view regarding "evil" you must understand its viewpoint which is not as simple as is stated. This is the point I make that this argument is far from new. In fact, from the Christian perspective this very thing was asked of Jesus in His day:
Luke 13:1-9 1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4“Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” 6And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7“And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8“And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”
The point is that the Christian faith clearly teaches that many of these things are not evil, but in fact those that willingly choose to disobey the standards set (i.e. sin; and that is all who are guilty) are all worthy of such things - so you better repent or the same thing will happen to you. The problem then is that the "New Atheist" rejects a God and takes that argument with them to a religious table and says "You are wrong because evil exists." Because they reject a God, they reject a standard of living or a moral code that we are obliged to keep to attain to God's standard (which, incidentally is impossible since the Fall thus the requirement for a perfect sacrifice) and thus see themselves and the majority of people as "good." I.e. they create the standards and judge God by it rather than accepting His standards to understand why "bad" things happen in the world, thus use that as an argument against His existence.
Luke 18:18-19 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
So thus is the arrogance of man - the assumption that we are "good enough" which is what most agnostics/theists will actually say. Most will say, "If there is a God, I think He will let me into heaven or not judge me because I haven't been that bad, I have led a generally good life. I'm no Hitler/Stalin/murderer/rapist, etc" Thus their offence when something bad happens to them or someone they love/see as "not bad". Its the same as the Luke 13 story - this question has not changed in 2000 years. Neither has the answer.Dr JDD_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

And, BA, as a corollary, whence the good? But to be fair, the atheist could say that we are the people positing the existence of good and evil and God and that they are just pointing out a contradiction. But by doing that they are committing themselves to utter relativism, which means they cannot make moral judgments whatsoever.Collin_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Also of note to the 'problem of evil', both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day and shared many strange similarities in their lives, but the one common thing they shared that separated the two men drastically was the way they choose to handle the evil that happened in their lives. Darwin, though drifting away from God for a long while, was permanently driven away from God because of what he perceived to be the 'unjust' death of his daughter, Whereas Lincoln, on the other hand, was driven from his mild skepticism into a deep reliance upon God because of the death of his son. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/#comment-443197 Held- Natalie Grant - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_y9204TBMbornagain77_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

I've never understood why people think the argument from evil is such a strong argument for atheism. The existence of evil necessitates that there be an objective, transcendent, standard of good that was departed from in order for evil to exist. i.e. Evil cannot exist without a reference point to good! C.S. Lewis, who was once an atheist, put the dilemma with evil for atheists like this:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
========
‘Right and Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe? by C.S. Lewis Doodle - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Doodle - animated apologetics (the trancendent nature of moral law) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow
Moreover, if Coyne is really concerned about the evil in the world, then he should give up atheism immediately since atheism's track record for increasing the evil in the world is overwhelming and consistent:
Compilation of morality statistics that don't bode well for atheists: Section 11. http://creation.com/atheism
bornagain77_{September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply