Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion Science

CSS debate on “natural evil” (David Snoke vs. Mike Keas) coming up in January 2018

Spread the love

The Christian Scientific SocietyDavid Snoke has announced a meeting on “natural evil” organized by the Christian Scientific Society at Biola U, January 26-27:

On Friday night, we will have a debate between David Snoke (me) and Mike Keas on “Are predatory animals a result of the Fall?” (Mike: yes; David: no).

Saturday afternoon, we will have four speakers addressing issues on the general topic of natural evil:

1:00 PM. Non-Empirical Influences on Evolutionary Theory and the Principle of Plenitude.” Dr. Cornelius Hunter, author of Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil; Darwin’s Proof, and Science’s Blind Spot.

2:00 PM. “The Human Genome: ENCODED by Design.” Dr. Fazale Rana, Vice President of Research and Apologetics, Reasons to Believe

3:00 PM. “The Tragic History of Mutations as the source of Genetic Variety.” Dr. Jerry Bergman, prolific author and past speaker at CSS meetings.

4:00 PM. “Evil or Potential for Greater Discovery?” Dr. Anjeannette Roberts, Research Scholar, Reasons to BelieveMore.

Registration here.

See also: Physicist David Snoke thinks that Christians should not use the kalaam argument for God’s existence

The narrator of this informative vid takes a rather benign view of natural evil, not shared probably by either Snoke or Keas:

3 Replies to “CSS debate on “natural evil” (David Snoke vs. Mike Keas) coming up in January 2018

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    On Friday night, we will have a debate between David Snoke (me) and Mike Keas on “Are predatory animals a result of the Fall?” (Mike: yes; David: no).

    I would like to see this, but unfortunately am too far away from the venue to attend.

    If Mike Keas is correct, does that have any implications regarding the behavior of humans?

    For example, should we refrain, at least to the extent possible or practical, from raising and killing animals for food? For many of us, the consumption of meat is a luxury, and could be reduced significantly or even eliminated, perhaps improving our health as a side effect.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Presumably, they’ll be against the idea of naturalistic evil and in favor of intelligently designed evil.

  3. 3
    jstanley01 says:

    I have trouble conceding that there is any such thing as “natural evil” connected to predation. A wolf pack taking down a lost fawn is no more evil than yours truly eating a beef hot dog with five-alarm mustard on it. Whatever evil is suffered by the fawn is offset by the good enjoyed by the wolves, including the very existence of wolves. Meanwhile, it is not readily evident to me that a wild bovine who lives out its natural life and dies has enjoyed good, while a slaughter cow that ends up on my bun has suffered evil. They’re both dead.

    Natural evil can only exist by an analogy constructed by a creature that was originally designed to partake of the tree of life and live forever, but who became subject to death at the fall. A creature who was designed to exercise dominion over creation, but instead, relegated himself by his disobedience to the animal roles of mere predator and mere prey via the malevolence of sin and the tragedy of inevitable death.

Leave a Reply