Finally Picked a creation stance.

[Philip]

"... then how are we to reconcile some of the more horrific examples of species or even the extinction of others?"

Reconcile? I don't understand. Whether God created species by evolution or instantly, they necessarily have their own food requirements, carnivores eating herbivores, etc., their individual places in the food chain. And none of that has changed to this day. Various species were never created to exist forever, thus many died out. But the dying out is also important - look at fossil fuels and how critical those long extinct species have been for the rise of man and modern technology. The present creation was not intended to be perfect or to last forever, but God knew when creating it that it would wind down, and that He would one day Create anew.

[RickD]

As I made my post while Philip was posting, it looks like I'm basically saying what he said.

PaulS wrote:
IF God directed TE, yes those issues would still be there, not so much if God instill in all living creatures the ability to adapt to their environment and allows for that adaption to be what it will be.

If God instills creatures with the ability to adapt and change into something you see as horrific, how is that different than God just creating the creature that way?(I'm not necessarily saying the creature is or isn't horrific. Just that I don't see a real difference between a creature being created by God for a specific purpose, and God giving that creature the ability to change into something.)

I asked about parasitic wasps awhile back and why God would create such a creature as is.

I really haven't looked into parasitic wasps specifically, but do they not fit into the ecosystem somehow?

If God created animals as is and continues to do so, why would he allow the extinction of some?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that humans are the main reason why animals become extinct. At least animals that have been around when humans have. That would answer that question. As for animals like dinosaurs going extinct, what do dinosaurs leave behind? Does what they leave behind play any role in mankind's technology, which plays a part in God's plan for eradicating sin?

If the world was created for man, why did God create animals that are so dangerous to man?

I could ask, Why did God create water which is can be so dangerous? Why did God create fire which can be dangerous?
The very things that are dangerous, also play a necessary part in our temporary world.
I wouldn't exactly say this temporary world was created for man, so much as I'd say this temporary world was created "perfectly" for the elimination of sin and evil, so man can choose to live eternally with God in His new creation.

And also I'd like to add that each time God allowed an extinction event(like the dinosaurs), it made the way for God to create new life. Each time God created new life, it was on the way to His creating mankind.


To add, this is just from a quick look at Wikipedia regarding parasitic wasps, and their purpose:

Typically, parasitoid wasps are not considered agricultural pests and are considered a beneficial insect as they control the population of host insects. They are also increasingly being released directly into regions specifically for the use of agricultural pest control.

Ain't that a good enough reason for ya?
They fit into their ecosystem designed perfectly by God for its purpose. It's not rocket surgery.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
They stated that since Adam was the federal head of the human race then the whole human race was effected and also according to the scripture quoted we are in need of redemption. I think that regardless of their creation view - certainly all the people at Biologos believes in the redeeming blood of Christ.

But Silvertusk, according to the article:

Homo divinus were the first humans who were truly spiritually
alive in fellowship with God, providing the spiritual roots of the Jewish faith. Certainly religious beliefs
existed before this time, as people sought after God or gods in different parts of the world, offering their
own explanations for the meaning of their lives, but Homo divinus marked the time at which God chose to
reveal himself and his purposes for humankind for the first time.

According to the article, before Adam was chosen, there were humans alive who "sought after God". So, those humans had a spiritual nature, and many had presumably died, correct? If spiritual death, then physical death, was a result of Adam's sin, then how could these prior humans have died? It's one thing to say that non-human, non-spirit hominids died before Adam sinned, but aren't they saying that humans died before Adam's sin?

I do like the fact that they are honest to admit that in some areas that they do not know and they (well certainly Denis does) are open to the fact that their models might be proved very wrong in the future. I find that open mindedness very refreshing.

Of course humility and honesty are great attributes. And I agree that their models(if you really want to call them models) very well might be proved wrong.

In all I have read - never once did they suggest that physical death was a part of the sin of Adam - Physical death has been around since life first started - it was spiritual death that occured when Adam sinned as orthodoxy suggests. People were happily dying before that.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
In all I have read - never once did they suggest that physical death was a part of the sin of Adam - Physical death has been around since life first started - it was spiritual death that occured when Adam sinned as orthodoxy suggests. People were happily dying before that.

I understand, and I agree that Adam incurred spiritual death as a result of his sin. But, one of the things that makes humans human, and different from all other animals, is our spiritual nature. The article says that these humans had a spiritual nature before Adam. So, bear with me. If Adam was the first to die spiritually, and those before him died physically, then wouldn't it follow that those before Adam had no need for redemption since they didn't die spiritually? so, for presumably millions of years, humans lived and died, but had no need for redemption found only by faith in Christ, because they didn't sin, and die spiritually. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of humans lived before Adam, and died without sinning. It's either that, or all men have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God. Or, maybe Adam isn't a real historic person.
Do you see the contradiction with scripture, or am I missing something?

[Ivellious]

Before I comment on some of what has been said, I'm going to point out something here briefly. It seems that the prevailing view of TE is that God directly and constantly has guided the evolution of every species since the dawn of time. Why is it not a possibility that, like all other natural laws, God didn't simply create the universe so that the laws of natural selection and variation would allow organisms to evolve, and let it go from there? No one seems to think that, say, the laws of physics are constantly being controlled and manipulated by God, so why do the laws of biology have to be? I mean, if God created life and set up the world so that evolution could occur within his plan, why is that so strange to believe?

It just seems strange that TE demands that God have a constant grip on how things evolve. I mean, if God set things up to eventually fit into his plan for mankind, why would God have to constantly mess with it over time when he could just set up natural laws to make it so and then "step out", much like you would presume he did with the laws of physics, chemistry, and so on?

Also, perhaps someone can explain something that completely baffles me. If you believe in an old Earth but that God created all life at the start of that time, are you saying that all forms of life (save for humans) were created and coexisted for millions/billions of years somehow? That seems off to me. I mean, how could the animals of today, the animals of the ice age, and the animals of a super-tropical dinosaur era all share the same environment and live?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that humans are the main reason why animals become extinct. At least animals that have been around when humans have.

This is an interesting debate/discussion within biology and paleontology/archaeology. There are certainly plenty of examples of humans causing extinctions, and yet within our time on Earth (so about the last 50,000 years) there are also examples of many prominent species dying out before humans even got to them (so, like other extinctions, they seem to be caused by environmental changes). And when you consider that more than 99.9% of all species that ever lived on Earth have gone extinct, clearly humans weren't involved in most of them.

As for animals like dinosaurs going extinct, what do dinosaurs leave behind? Does what they leave behind play any role in mankind's technology, which plays a part in God's plan for eradicating sin?

I suppose you could say that to an extent, but most species dying out has no real impact on human life or fossil fuel production.

And also I'd like to add that each time God allowed an extinction event(like the dinosaurs), it made the way for God to create new life. Each time God created new life, it was on the way to His creating mankind.

Did God, though? I think it's fairly clear that in all cases, mass extinctions didn't kill all life on Earth, not even close. A mass extinction like the dinosaurs typically removes around 60% of all species on the planet, so I wouldn't say that God was required to create more life to replace them. The survivors simply adapted to their new environments and their successive offspring inherited the Earth.

[RickD]

Hi Ivellious

Ivellious wrote:
It seems that the prevailing view of TE is that God directly and constantly has guided the evolution of every species since the dawn of time. Why is it not a possibility that, like all other natural laws, God didn't simply create the universe so that the laws of natural selection and variation would allow organisms to evolve, and let it go from there? No one seems to think that, say, the laws of physics are constantly being controlled and manipulated by God, so why do the laws of biology have to be? I mean, if God created life and set up the world so that evolution could occur within his plan, why is that so strange to believe?

While that is certainly one view inside TE, I'm not sure it's the prevailing view. From what I'm seeing, there are many different views inside the term "Theistic Evolution". I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of biology", but I personally just don't see that the evidence suggests that God created, and then left everything to go as He guided.

It just seems strange that TE demands that God have a constant grip on how things evolve. I mean, if God set things up to eventually fit into his plan for mankind, why would God have to constantly mess with it over time when he could just set up natural laws to make it so and then "step out", much like you would presume he did with the laws of physics, chemistry, and so on?

I just think overall, scripture shows God as a personal God. That would include being personally involved with His creation along the way. I think the "days" in Genesis suggest that as an example.

Also, perhaps someone can explain something that completely baffles me. If you believe in an old Earth but that God created all life at the start of that time, are you saying that all forms of life (save for humans) were created and coexisted for millions/billions of years somehow? That seems off to me. I mean, how could the animals of today, the animals of the ice age, and the animals of a super-tropical dinosaur era all share the same environment and live?

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see anyone saying that. Old Earth/Progressive Creationism that Hugh Ross and Rich Deem promotes, suggests God created over long periods of time. Most, if not all, Young Earth Creation sites that I've seen suggest God created everything in a brief 144 hour period 6-10 thousand years ago.
Here's a link that shows the "days" of creation from an OEC/PC perspective:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

This is an interesting debate/discussion within biology and paleontology/archaeology. There are certainly plenty of examples of humans causing extinctions, and yet within our time on Earth (so about the last 50,000 years) there are also examples of many prominent species dying out before humans even got to them (so, like other extinctions, they seem to be caused by environmental changes). And when you consider that more than 99.9% of all species that ever lived on Earth have gone extinct, clearly humans weren't involved in most of them.

I agree. I meant to say that humans are directly or indirectly responsible for the extinction of animals that lived simultaneously with humans. Whether extinctions in the past were caused by catastrophes or environmental factors, I believe God progressively created new life at the exact time that the conditions on earth could support that life. Culminating with God's final creation work; man.

I suppose you could say that to an extent, but most species dying out has no real impact on human life or fossil fuel production.

Ancient bacteria, animals, and plants are believed to be the sources of fossil fuels. Much of that could be millions of years old.

Did God, though? I think it's fairly clear that in all cases, mass extinctions didn't kill all life on Earth, not even close. A mass extinction like the dinosaurs typically removes around 60% of all species on the planet, so I wouldn't say that God was required to create more life to replace them. The survivors simply adapted to their new environments and their successive offspring inherited the Earth.

Over the billions of years the earth has existed, the conditions have changed. When the conditions had changed that would allow for certain life, God created that life. An evolutionist may say that when the conditions on earth changed, life evolved.
The difference is that evolution adherents see the evidence points to life evolving. OEC/PC adherents see new life being created up until man's creation. My opinion is that the evidence shows Progressive creation, not macro evolution. Hopefully, new discoveries will show us that the evidence points more towards one or the other.

[Kurieuo]

My concern with OEC is that, if God created every living being "as is" or directed them to be "as is", then how are we to reconcile some of the more horrific examples of species or even the extinction of others?

What specific "horrific" examples are you having a problem reconciling? If God directed TE, then those same "horrific" examples still have to be reconciled, don't they.

IF God directed TE, yes those issues would still be there, not so much if God instill in all living creatures the ability to adapt to their environment and allows for that adaption to be what it will be.
I asked about parasitic wasps awhile back and why God would create such a creature as is.
If God created animals as is and continues to do so, why would he allow the extinction of some?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals
If the world was created for man, why did God create animals that are so dangerous to man?

Scripture supports the natural process of life and death as a good thing.

You can take one element, and say "Gee, that looks nasty", but God didn't create just one part in and of itself -- he designed everything to work together. So the question isn't if one part is bad, the question is whether overall everything is bad? If overall, you'd say everything is quite good, then there is no issue -- because God created everything to work together rather than in isolation.

Looking at the complete picture one begins to admire the beauty and fascinating design regardless of worldview.

Interestingly, we can look to God's design of creation, and draw many parallels to our own lives. For some fun, look at how the female praying mantis will eat the male after mating and how this correlates with human reality? The male praying mantis will cautiously approach, and even stay on the female a while after looking the best opportunity to make a quickly getaway to avoid being cannabilised. And yet, it risks its life for the pleasure of copulating with a female. How incredibly weak and thick are many men when it comes to women, especially if a woman uses her sexuality and beauty to her advantage? Many men'll throw away all common sense for the chance of bedding a woman...

As for extinctions, well where does Scripture say God created our world to be permanent? I don't read that anywhere. God created a world that He knew would be temporary and this includes life dying. The permanent is the world hereafter. Do not confuse the purpose of our temporary world, with the kingdom that follows. The wolf won't lie down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6; Isaiah 65:25) until the new kingdom is in. The old must first pass away before there will be no more death, mourning, tears or pain (Revelation 21:4).

God created this world to be temporary, not a perfect hedonistic paradise. It is perfect however for it's purpose though, and that is allowing beings with free will the opportunity to develop and grow and either respond to their creator in love, or reject the creator by burying their heads in the sand of ignorance. When God created us, while our bodies were fully formed, I believe we -- who we are -- was not fully formed. This transformation happens in life. Some of us follow and eat the eternal truth of life. Those of us who partake become "cocooned" in Christ and one day we will be raised as beautiful butterflies. Others, are preyed upon and taken by evil forces in the world and end up stung and eaten by wasps. How's that for an analogy?

As for YEC, there is nothing inherently wrong with animal death in God's creation if one is arguing this on the basis that such would implicate God as bad. Scripture implicates God as the source of carnivorous activity, and even death of young caused by God withholding common sense from animals. So to believe God never intended death and pain as part of His creation seems just wrong.

• God gives the lion its prey (Psalm 104:20-22)
• God gives ravens (which eat rodents and insects) their own food (Job 38:39-41)
• God withheld wisdom from the ostrich to look after her young properly; "unmindful that a foot may crush them" (Job 39:13-18)

To expand upon Psalm 104:20-22; in verse 20 we have: "You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl." KJV renders "prowl" as "creep," but the meaning is the same. What is the point of roaming around stealthily (and at night), if their food is simply given to them by God in a similar way a zookeeper might give slabs of meat to carnivorous animals within a zoo?

Then verse 21 says: "The young lions roar after their prey (tereph) And seek their food (okel) from God." (NASB) Here we see the point of roaming around stealthily (v. 20) appears to be so beasts such as lions can capture their "prey" (prey means "an animal caught or hunted for food"). The word translated "prey" (tereph), has the meaning of something being torn. It could be translated as "food" also, but such doesn't capture all that is meant by this word. If all this word implied was "food" (which it doesn't), then there would be a needless repetition of the word "food." For example: "The young lions roar after their [food] and seek their food from God." Clearly this doesn't make too much sense unless the word intended in the first case is "prey," which is also found in every translation I've read. Thus, the picture presented is one of lions hunting their prey, which means they hunt to capture, kill and eat other animals. And it is by the natural food chain and order that God setup, and/or even perhaps say a more personal providence by God bringing a stray deer across the lions path, that God provides food for the lion.

I used NASB when quoting verse 21 as NIV looses some translation by simply stating "lions," rather than "young lions." KJV also translates more precisely. Young lions would be more fit and healthy than older ones in their sport of hunting down other animals for their food. The fact "young lions" is used, is further support that God doesn't merely provide an already dead animal for the lion. Otherwise why make reference to younger lions which would be more fit to hunt? Therefore, it becomes even more clear that the picture being developed here is one of a fit and fearsome lion sporting for its prey.

Then we reach verse 22: "The sun rises, and they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens." After the hunt is over, and they've eaten the food that God provided for them, they return back to their dens to rest. These three verses (v. 20-22) capture the exact same predatory process we expect today of certain wild carnivorous beasts. There is no way to avoid that God condones carnivorous activity unless one ignores Scripture.

Sadly, in Western society we tend to side with the early Western churches that followed in Augustine's footsteps that creation was made "perfect," when infact this is never once declared in Scripture. Creation was declared "good" and "very good," but never perfect. Such is for the final kingdom that will be established in the end.

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk wrote:
In all I have read - never once did they suggest that physical death was a part of the sin of Adam - Physical death has been around since life first started - it was spiritual death that occured when Adam sinned as orthodoxy suggests. People were happily dying before that.

I understand, and I agree that Adam incurred spiritual death as a result of his sin. But, one of the things that makes humans human, and different from all other animals, is our spiritual nature. The article says that these humans had a spiritual nature before Adam. So, bear with me. If Adam was the first to die spiritually, and those before him died physically, then wouldn't it follow that those before Adam had no need for redemption since they didn't die spiritually? so, for presumably millions of years, humans lived and died, but had no need for redemption found only by faith in Christ, because they didn't sin, and die spiritually. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of humans lived before Adam, and died without sinning. It's either that, or all men have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God. Or, maybe Adam isn't a real historic person.
Do you see the contradiction with scripture, or am I missing something?

I see what you are saying - but I think Alexander was implying that the people before Adam weren't spiritual in the sense of a relationship with God. He was relying on the fact that God is the Judge of all the earth - for those people before Adam - or maybe they were covered by what Paul said in Romans that they were a law unto themselves. But I still believe they needed redeeming. Adam was the start of the redemption - he failed as God knew he would and so Christ came as was planned before creation. Remember even Alexander admitted that it was not a perfect model - but it was the best that brought evolution and scripture into harmony.

My personal problem here, as stated before, is that I am quite convinced that evolution is true because of the overwhelming evidence that exists for it, (whether you think that is the case or not - I do) in the same way that I am convinced that God and Christ is true because of the overwhelming evidence of that. So in my mind the two must harmonise and that has to be down to an interpretation of scripture. I have people asking me these questions at my church and I need to give them answer. Telling them evolution is false is no longer an option in my mind in almost the same way that telling them that the Big Bang theory is false (Remember that also caused some problems with some branches of theism). Maybe one day something will turn up that disproves evolution, but that does not seem the case at the moment. All through history science from a christian perspective has always been about discovering the glory and awe of God's creation. When viewed as a big picture, evolution certainly seems incredible and awe inspiring and to me gives more glory to God.

I am just about to read the last chapter of Alexander's book when he talks about evolution as "designed" as a whole and maybe I have more to say then.

God Bless.

Silvertusk.

[Philip]

My personal problem here, as stated before, is that I am quite convinced that evolution is true because of the overwhelming evidence that exists for it, (whether you think that is the case or not - I do) in the same way that I am convinced that God and Christ is true because of the overwhelming evidence of that. So in my mind the two must harmonize and that has to be down to an interpretation of scripture.

It's rather pointless to argue with Christians who believe that God created through the process of evolution - because, to them, all of the enormous problems with natural evolution are easily dismissed, no apparent insurmountable issue could not have been overcome, especially if one deems that God was driving the entire evolutionary processes. But if a TE worships Jesus and calls him Lord, and he embraces Scripture as "God-breathed," in a way it's much like the peace I pursue with YECs - as that precisely HOW God created, WHEN He began creating our universe, and HOW LONG it took Him, are all to some degree unknowable - are mostly irrelevant. But my problem with many TEs is that they view the Adam and Eve and creation accounts as allegories, which I believe is very dangerous and taints their ability to correctly understand foundational portions of the Bible.

Most Christian OEC's and YEC's biggest contentions are over the issues involving creation TIME. And OEC's biggest problem with YEC's view of time is that they believe that it impairs the ability to believe in Scripture for those embracing contemporary science's views of time (age of the universe, earth, life, man). And many YECs wrongly believe that OECs necessarily embrace macro-evolution.

[PaulSacramento]

My personal problem here, as stated before, is that I am quite convinced that evolution is true because of the overwhelming evidence that exists for it, (whether you think that is the case or not - I do) in the same way that I am convinced that God and Christ is true because of the overwhelming evidence of that. So in my mind the two must harmonize and that has to be down to an interpretation of scripture.

It's rather pointless to argue with Christians who believe that God created through the process of evolution - because, to them, all of the enormous problems with natural evolution are easily dismissed, no apparent insurmountable issue could not have been overcome, especially if one deems that God was driving the entire evolutionary processes. But if a TE worships Jesus and calls him Lord, and he embraces Scripture as "God-breathed," in a way it's much like the peace I pursue with YECs - as that precisely HOW God created, WHEN He began creating our universe, and how long it took Him, are all to some degree unknowable - are mostly irrelevant. But my problem with many TEs is that they view the Adam and Eve and creation accounts as allegories, which I believe is very dangerous and taints their ability to correctly understand foundational portions of the Bible.

Most Christian OEC's and YEC's biggest contentions are over the issues involving creation TIME. And OEC's biggest problem with YEC's view of time is that they believe that it impairs the ability to believe in Scripture for those embracing contemporary science's views of time (age of the universe, earth, life, man). And many YECs wrongly believe that OECs necessarily embrace macro-evolution.

I don't think that is fair to say.
ALL parties are guilty of "explaining away" difficulties in their views.
I brought up the issue of the parasitic wasp that paralizes it's prey and then lays eggs in it and when the eggs hatch the larvae eat the still living prey.
If the wasp evolved to do that, it's pretty bad BUT if God created the wasp to do that as it, one can argue that is even worse.
Point being is that ALL views have issues they MUST reconcile with science AND scripture.
Just saying...

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I don't think that is fair to say.
ALL parties are guilty of "explaining away" difficulties in their views.
I brought up the issue of the parasitic wasp that paralizes it's prey and then lays eggs in it and when the eggs hatch the larvae eat the still living prey.
If the wasp evolved to do that, it's pretty bad BUT if God created the wasp to do that as it, one can argue that is even worse.
Point being is that ALL views have issues they MUST reconcile with science AND scripture.
Just saying...

Paul, parasitic wasps are a great benefit in agriculture. They control the populations of host insects that destroy crops. I really don't understand the issue. Parasitic wasps play an important role in an ecosystem. Sounds like an amazing design to me.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
I don't think that is fair to say.
ALL parties are guilty of "explaining away" difficulties in their views.
I brought up the issue of the parasitic wasp that paralizes it's prey and then lays eggs in it and when the eggs hatch the larvae eat the still living prey.
If the wasp evolved to do that, it's pretty bad BUT if God created the wasp to do that as it, one can argue that is even worse.
Point being is that ALL views have issues they MUST reconcile with science AND scripture.
Just saying...

Paul, parasitic wasps are a great benefit in agriculture. They control the populations of host insects that destroy crops. I really don't understand the issue. Parasitic wasps play an important role in an ecosystem. Sounds like an amazing design to me.

They can do their job WITHOUT the eating alive of their prey.
You'd feel the same way if one of man's man predators did the same thing? killed humans the same way?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
They can do their job WITHOUT the eating alive of their prey.

Says who?

PaulS wrote:
You'd feel the same way if one of man's man predators did the same thing? killed humans the same way?

I read a story a little while back where a young woman was camping, somewhere in Russia I believe. If I remember correctly, she woke up to a mother bear and her cubs. The mother bear decided that this woman was going to be breakfast for her and her cubs. The bear then proceeded to pin the young woman down while her cubs began to eat this woman while she was still alive. As the story goes, the young woman was able to call her Mom on her cell phone, and describe to her Mom that the bear and its cub were eating her. At first the woman was screaming in pain as the bears ripped her apart. Later on, the woman told her mom that she no longer felt any pain, and then she died.

I can't "bear" the thought of what that poor young woman went through.

I'm not saying that's not a horrible story. Because it is. But does that story mean that I can't believe God could create bears because bears can eat their prey while their still alive?

I found a link to the story:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/1 ... 30464.html

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
They can do their job WITHOUT the eating alive of their prey.

Says who?

PaulS wrote:
You'd feel the same way if one of man's man predators did the same thing? killed humans the same way?

I read a story a little while back where a young woman was camping, somewhere in Russia I believe. If I remember correctly, she woke up to a mother bear and her cubs. The mother bear decided that this woman was going to be breakfast for her and her cubs. The bear then proceeded to pin the young woman down while her cubs began to eat this woman while she was still alive. As the story goes, the young woman was able to call her Mom on her cell phone, and describe to her Mom that the bear and its cub were eating her. At first the woman was screaming in pain as the bears ripped her apart. Later on, the woman told her mom that she no longer felt any pain, and then she died.

I'm not saying that's not a horrible story. Because it is. But does that story mean that I can't believe God could create bears because bears can eat their prey while their still alive?

I found a link to the story:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/1 ... 30464.html

The point isn't that bears CAN do that, the point is that, according to the creationist view, parasitic wasps were created TO DO that.
It's something that we must reconcile with the notion that God created everything AS IS.
If a person has no issues with that, that;s fine and I can accept that.
But we can't deny that the "less than ideal" things of nature, IF they were created to be such, are indeed issues.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
The point isn't that bears CAN do that, the point is that, according to the creationist view, parasitic wasps were created TO DO that.
It's something that we must reconcile with the notion that God created everything AS IS.
If a person has no issues with that, that;s fine and I can accept that.
But we can't deny that the "less than ideal" things of nature, IF they were created to be such, are indeed issues.

Paul, I think nature is "ideal" for its purpose. This temporary life is not supposed to be free from sin and pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, animals eating other animals and people are all a part of this temporary creation that God created as His means to eradicate sin and evil. I believe this creation is the best possible creation to do what it's supposed to do. Without water that can flood and kill people, we would all die of dehydration. Without fire that can burn and kill, we'd have no warmth on cold nights. Without animals that kill their prey, we'd have no functioning ecosystems.

I really don't see this as a problem of God's creating this temporary creation for its purpose.