On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:39:57 -0600 "Charles F. Austerberry"
<cfauster@creighton.edu> writes:
>
> Lewis is a particular challenge for me as I struggle with relating
> The Fall
> and evolution. A recurring theme of Lewis's writings is that we
> should
> beware of modern (postmodern ?) theories that diminish the scandal
> and/or
> reality of evil. In the book _Perelandra_, Lewis has all sorts of
> common
> modern ideas, some quite specifically related to evolution,
> articulated by
> a character named Weston. The previously materialistic physicist
> Weston
> comes to realize the supreme importance of spirituality and the
> spirit
> world, but he doesn't distinguish between good and evil spirits. In
> fact,
> Weston becomes a virtual incarnation of evil when fully possessed by
> the
> diabolical.
>
> Here's my basic question: how can we continue to recognize the
> reality and
> significance of evil, which is so clearly presented in the Genesis
> story of
> the Fall and its aftermath, while also accepting physical death and
> human
> origins through evolution as part of God's good creation? A related
> question is the origin of evil itself. If the Garden of Eden was
> not a
> specific place in time nor an accurate representation of a situation
> that
> actually ever existed in human (and pre-human) evolution, how do we
> understand the aftermath of the Fall? The aftermath indeed seems to
> be a
> pretty accurate representation of our actual, existential condition.
> The
> problem is what to make of the Garden, "before" the Fall. If evil
> existed
> long before humans, did evil "taint" evolution? If so, what would
> "untainted" evolution, the kind of evolution God "intended," have
> looked
> like?
>
> As an evolutionary biologist, I'd prefer emotionally to view the
> evolutionary history of earth as wholly God's good creation.
>
>
Chuck, you've put out a number of questions, more than I can claim to
answer. But I think things may come easier through a consideration of
several terms: evil, death, pain, and the related good, bad, sin. Part of
the difficulty seems to lie in the overlap and ambiguity of some of these
terms. For example, consider 'death'. It had to be in existence since the
origin of life. Is it then evil? A common interpretation of Genesis 2:16f
makes it so. "...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die." does not apply to the death that characterized living creatures,
for Adam and Eve ate and then lived for centuries. The spiritual death
that they suffered was immediate, for they had to hide from the God with
whom they had earlier fellowshiped. In the divine mercy, the pair was
shut out of the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life "and live
forever" (3:22). What is bad is unending life in the fallen state.
The cessation of life is stressful, certainly for human beings, but also
for animals. I understand that elephants are perturbed at the death of a
fellow, and react also to the skeletal remains later. Could God have
created undying entities? Apparently, but their being would have to be
very different than the life familiar to us. But an eternally reproducing
"species" would soon use up every basis for its life. So reproduction
would be out. Nutrition would have to be on a very different basis, with
no animals eating plants, and no decay possible. Boiled down, the life of
angels (so far as we know) may fit, but not terrestrial life. Even with
the indefinitely long lives of some desert palnts, rings form, with the
central growth dying out, like a fairy ring in very slow motion.
Is pain evil? Certainly animals feel it, so it must be ancient. It is
generally unpleasant, although the controlled pain of chili can be an
acquired taste. But discomfort after eating something warns me that it is
poisonous, or at least not good for me. The pain of a strain keeps me
from aggravating the injury. Granted, the nociceptive apparatus can get
out of whack. But this is a malfunction of what is essentially
beneficial. An inadequate sensation of pain is what killed the tallest
man on earth, Robert Wadlow.
'Evil' is ambiguous, for it applies to moral evil or sin, as well as a
variety of other conditions, almost anything one doesn't like. But it is
in the sense of sin that it is relevant to Genesis 2-3. Mixing all the
rest of the notions in causes grave problems. "Good', taken as the
opposite of 'bad', has its own ambiguity. Part of this can be removed by
recognizing the difference between intrinsic goods, things good in
themseves, and extrinsic goods. The quick test for the difference is to
ask whether something is good for another thing. If the answer is yes, it
is extrinsic. The obvious failure of this test is when something is a
mixed good, with some of each. A purely intrinsic good is recognized as
being good in and of itselt. Indeed, there is a certain twisted relevance
in what has been given as a child's definition: "A lie is an abomination
unto the Lord and an ever present help in time of trouble."
Truth is properly held as an intrinsic good. However, the whole
unvarnished truth told to someone who has just been diagnosed with an
inoperable malignancy is probably not the best approach. There is
something relevant in "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). This
fits in with there being a hierarchy of goods. So something that is good
may be evil in circumstances where its acceptance interferes with a
higher good. I think, for example, of a widowed father who abandoned his
minor children to go off to do missionary work with his new wife.
The questions you raise need to be examined with careful attention to the
terms involved, so as to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Obviously, the
problems are difficult enough to demand much thought.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 23:38:21 EST