evil and suffering

[cslewislover]

I didn't know that about that avatar. Where is it from? Kristoffer's looks like it's been folded or something.

Gman, or anyone, do you have a good link concerning Ken Miller? I was just trying to find out more about him, and I didn't find out much yet about his take on creation. He's against creationists, yet he claims to be a Theistic Evolutionist. Theistic Evolutionists still believe God created the universe and all its processes, so . . . is it others who say he's against creationism, or does he explain this somewhere? I'd like to know. A theistic evolutionist I had heard at a debate once (at Biola), after being questioned, really denied much of the bible. That would be OK if the person didn't say they were Christian, but they said they were. Sin and original sin really get to be a problem with theistic evolution.

[zoegirl]

That's the frsutrating of the term theistic evolutionist....

Ken Miller is very much more of the Deist creator. He has written a book trying to reconcile Religion and Evolution but it definitely places more emphasis on God's non-involvement...

[cslewislover]

I know this has gotten off-topic, so maybe some of this discussion will be moved later, but I found this and I thought it would be good for anyone who thinks Ken Miller is so great, to read. This long quote is a portion of this essay: Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics (BTW, I think the other parts are a better read and quite informative!)

IV. Kenneth Miller

In Finding Darwin's God (Miller 1999) Kenneth Miller is also anxious to show my claims about the literature are not true (or at least are not true now, since the handful of papers he cites in his section "The Sound of Silence" were published after my book appeared). Yet none of the papers he cites deals with irreducibly complex systems.

The first paper Miller discusses concerns two structurally-similar enzymes, both called isocitrate dehydrogenase. The main difference between the two is simply that one uses the organic cofactor NAD while the other uses NADP. The two cofactors are very similar, differing only in the presence or absence of a phosphate group. The authors of the study show that by mutating several residues in either enzyme, they can change the specificity for NAD or NADP. (Dean and Golding 1997) Although the study is very interesting, at the very best it is microevolution of a single protein, not an irreducibly complex system.

The next paper Miller cites concerns "antifreeze" proteins. (Logsdon and Doolittle 1997) Again, these are single proteins that do not interact with other components; they are not irreducibly complex. In fact, they are great examples of what I agree evolution can indeed do--start with a protein that accidentally binds something (ice nuclei in this case, maybe antibiotics in another case) and select for mutations that improve that property. But they don't shed light on irreducibly complex systems.

Another paper Miller cites concerns the cytochrome c oxidase proton pump (Musser and Chan 1998), which is involved in electron transfer. In humans six proteins take part in the function; in some bacteria fewer proteins are involved. While quite interesting, the mechanism of the system is not known in enough detail to understand what's going on; it remains in large part a black box. Further, the function of electron transfer does not necessarily require multiple protein components, so it is not necessarily irreducibly complex. Finally, the study is not detailed enough to criticize, saying things such as "It makes evolutionary sense that the cytochrome bc1and cytochrome c oxidase complexes arose from a primitive quinol terminal oxidase complex via a series of beneficial mutations." In order to judge whether natural selection could do the job, we have to know what the "series of beneficial mutations" is. Otherwise it's like saying that a five-part mousetrap arose from a one-part mousetrap by a series of beneficial mutations (3).

Finally Miller discusses a paper which works out a scheme for how the organic-chemical components of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, a central metabolic pathway, may have arisen gradually. (Melendez-Hevia et al. 1996) There are several points to make about it. First, the paper deals with the chemical interconversion of organic molecules, not the enzymes of the pathway or their regulation. As an analogy, suppose someone described how petroleum is refined step by step, beginning with crude oil, passing through intermediate grades, and ending with, say, gasoline. He shows that the chemistry of the processes is smooth and continuous, yet says nothing about the actual machinery of the refinery or its regulation, nothing about valves or switches. Clearly that is inadequate to show refining of petroleum developed step by step. Analogously, someone who is seriously interested in showing that a metabolic pathway could evolve by Darwinian means has to deal with the enzymic machinery and its regulation.

The second and more important point is that, while the paper is very interesting, it doesn't address irreducible complexity. Either Miller hasn't read what I said in my book about metabolic pathways, or he is deliberately ignoring it. I clearly stated in Darwin's Black Box metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex (Behe 1996) (pp. 141-142; 150-151), because components can be gradually added to a previous pathway. Thus metabolic pathways simply aren't in the same category as the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Although Miller somehow misses the distinction, other scientists do not. In a recent paper Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution "cannot generate irreducibly complex structures." But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, "such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996 a, b)." (Thornhill and Ussery 2000) In other words Thornhill and Ussery acknowledge the TCA cycle is not irreducibly complex, as I wrote in my book. Miller seems unable or unwilling to grasp that point.

[truthman]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... alf-right/

HHAHAHAHA. seriously. Are you sure this site is the best source?

And idea that any kind of random, unguided process can produce the fantastically elegant designs we see in nature is just absurd First, its not random, second its not unguided. Lastly it is not ABSURD.

I would wager you didn't seriously read what he wrote; you just glanced at it and it produced a knee jerk reaction.
I haven't read it all yet, but what he has to say is VERY good: truly makes me think.
I challenge you to read it through, study what he says, then if you can seriously challenge his statements, have at it.

[Kristoffer]

Kris, why are you posting non-creationists links on a creationist web site? Also did you realize your avatar is the Mormon Jesus?

My Avater i made myself, it is not mormon jesus (who is?) I never thought of this place as a "creationist" website, do you mind explaining what you mean by this?

I haven't read it all yet, but what he has to say is VERY good: truly makes me think. Things can make you think, that is good. They do not have to be entirely true to do so though. If I had the time i could put in atleast some kind of effort to debunk it, not that it is very well "bunked" anyway.

But they don't shed light on irreducibly complex systems. Which are?

adjö

[truthman]

so, did you really read it?

[Kristoffer]

I read until i was too mad to read anymore. Down to where it says "lies are evil", which is laughable because of how many good lies are in the bible.(ones which save lifes)

[truthman]

If you stop reading every time you come across a statement you don't agree with you probably will have little to read. You will also be very skewed in your conclusions.
Take the time to read what the man said. He is an intelligent, educated thinker and worthy of consideration.
Open your mind and honestly consider both sides: you will be the richer for it.

BTW, if you think about it further, lying is evil and harmful in the long run.
Please elaborate: what good lies are there in the Bible? In my lifetime of reading it I don't recall having come across any.

[cslewislover]

My Avater i made myself, it is not mormon jesus (who is?) I never thought of this place as a "creationist" website, do you mind explaining what you mean by this?

Kristoffer, I've told you a number of times that this is a creationist site. I said that there were different views on creationism. There is Old Earth creationism, and this site reflects a variety of that, Day Age Progressive creationism. There is Theistic Evolution, which is a creationist position (despite what Miller and/or his followers say - lol), and there's Young Earth creationism, which this site does not reflect.

Creationism means a belief that the universe and all were created by God (some religions might say dieties or something). It doesn't mean a person necessarily believes in young earth creationism. I don't think these concepts are difficult, you just need to read the posts (like this one!) and take it in.

. . . Rahab lied.

[truthman]

True, Rahab lied, but it is not necessarily a good lie. God was in control and God was the one that truly saved the spies: not Rahab by her lying.
She obviously thought she was doing God a favour but He doesn't need our resorting to lying to make things work out for good.

[cslewislover]

Rahab lied to save her own skin. She probably was not very aware, if at all, of the Israelite God (besides that he was more powerful than the other land's gods). Yes, it's OK to lie sometimes. Just as in this case, if you need to lie to save your life, or the lives of your family, then it will probably be OK. I would say that it depends on the circumstances, and in any case, God would be gracious to forgive if we repented of lying. I don't know what to make of the article's logic with this - there are quite a few comments after it and maybe this is brought up. If not, it would be good to ask the author.

[sinnerbybirth]

True, Rahab lied, but it is not necessarily a good lie. God was in control and God was the one that truly saved the spies: not Rahab by her lying.
She obviously thought she was doing God a favour but He doesn't need our resorting to lying to make things work out for good.

Since the subject has briefly went to lying, I thought I might ask a question. I agree with you truthman, but how do you explain 1 Kings 22: 19-23 ?

19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the Lord said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.”

I haven't been able to give good reason for this when asked.


Thanks

[cslewislover]

So many things need to be taken in context, since God looks at people's motives. God commanded us "not to kill (murder)," yet he ordered the Israelites to go out and kill many times. So, is God bipolar or deceitful? No, we are not to kill in one situation, but it's OK in another situation. It's OK to kill to defend your family and your nation. Lying is OK in the same situations, apparently, since God gives us this example with Rahab, and Rahab was blessed. You are making out that lying is worse than killing . . . that's what it seems like. In this situation with Rahab, God was obviously involved.

[truthman]

I agree with Adam Clarke as written in his commentary that Micaiah was speaking in a parable, not giving a literal account of a true revelation from God (Micaiah did not actually have this vision and God did not send the deceiving spirit). In other words, in reading the story we find the situation that Micaiah answered the king as to what God said would happen if he went to battle, but the other prophets disagreed with him. Rather than tell the king "all of these prophets are liars who do not have the Spirit of God directing them and you are crazy if you listen to them" Micaiah gives a parable to get across the message that "if you believe these false prophets who think they are telling you the truth because they have been deceived, you will die in battle just like I said".
BTW you can download a free bible program like Online Bible or ESword and download and access different bible versions and many commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, etc. Of course a caveat: commentaries are not infallible.

[truthman]

God never said it was OK to lie. God is incapable of lying: it is incompatible with His nature. He creates by His word and everything He says exists in reality.
Satan is the originator of lying and is the father of all lies.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

It is never right to do evil for good to come.

Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

The commandment not to kill is actually a commandment not to murder: not to take innocent life. There never was a commandment not to kill in the administration of justice. God only instructed people to kill in the administration of judgement and justice.