John comments about the web site he referenced: [...]
> It has some interesting articles. (Though I was disappointed in the
> "Design and Evil" article -- didn't seem to engage the logical
> problems. Seems passionate, but a bit vague and equivocal to me.)
[...]
Vague... Hmmm... Yes. I couldn't quite wrap my brain around the idea
that one shouldn't seek to explain moral evil because it legitimizes
its existence.
I noticed that the editor prefaced the commentary with:
* "[...]The problem of the existence of evil (both ãnaturalä and ãmoralä)
* gave Charles Darwin perhaps his most compelling argument against
* the intelligent design of the universe, life, and humankind..."
I disagree. "Evil" neither adds to nor detracts from the _possibility_
of intelligent design (or evolution). I can see (barely) how it might
speak towards the motivations and "nature" of a specific formulation
of an intelligent designer, but that's a separate matter. Or at least
I think it should be. I suspect that "evil" is only a problem for those
who wish to connect a hypothetical intelligent designer to their
preferred version of a designer.
I told Paul Nelson (the editor) some time ago that this sort of
religious preference should not be used for eliminating possible actions
of designers from consideration. I feel it unnecessarily limits any
such a search. That is, if we are going to consider the possibility
of extranatural assembly as a scientific question then _everything_
gets put on the table; even stuff one might feel is unacceptable from
the standpoint of one's faith. For example, some feel that evolution
couldn't have happened because it necessitates death before the fall
of man; that possibility simply taxes their "theological picture" too
far. But what if it does? Is it better to play the "ostrich" or
face the reality?
Perhaps it would be better to shelf such a problem as "evil" for
now in the study of life's origins; at least until we've seen good
evidence for an extranatural designer in evolution. The editor
continued from above: "Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse questioned
the character of a divine designer who would allow evil." But Ruse's
argument really only applies against a specific kind of designer, not
against design per se. It is fascinating to me that "design theorists"
who are seeking to detect extranatural design in biology should be
vexed by Ruse's statements. Those are problems about the nature of
the divine that lie far, far away from the more proximate biological
question at hand.
This is not to say that such a discussion is uninteresting or
unimportant from a theological & Christian perspective. My point is
more narrowly focused: that such worries shouldn't serve to limit the
inquiry into the causes of biological development. Otherwise one might
not progress much further in scientific inquiries than those who can't
work their way beyond an ancient earth or of death before the fall of man.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)