No Problem with Evil: Part 1

The Problem of Evil has posed a dilemma for many a person, in my opinion, because one begins their analysis by asking the wrong question, "Why does an all loving God allow evil and suffering to exist in the world?"

This question assumes that mankind is deserving of goodness and not evil. This question absolves mankind from accepting any responsibility regarding the ongoing evil that occurs in this world. Furthermore, the question deems God as Omnipotent, being able to do something about the evil (not allowing it) while simultaneously blaming Him for not doing anything about it. Perhaps one is angry at God because He can do something about it, but yet chooses to do nothing about it, or to allow it as He sees fit at certain times and not at other times. If this is the case, then one must suggest that it is also God's prerogative to do as He pleases regarding the matter of Evil.

But still I have not offered the question that should be asked. The one that I believe corrects our thinking regarding the Problem of Evil. Instead of asking, "Why does an all loving God allow evil and suffering to exist in the world?" we should begin to ask ourselves, "Why does God allow goodness to enter into a world that is comprised of evil people?"

The latter question acknowledges that goodness does exist in the world and not evil alone. We celebrate the life of a newborn child, a cure from a disease, material possessions, friendship, and love. Where does this goodness come from? Is it mankind who creates such things, as it were, taking lemons and making lemonade? If we embrace mankind as the author of goodness, we must also accuse mankind for the perpetuation and existence of evil.

We understand that there is a dualism at work here, but is it necessary? Is it necessary for evil to exist with goodness? One needs only to turn to the Laws of Nature to answer this question... (Yes). So is a world without evil really a better world at all? No Evil = No Goodness. No Evil + No Goodness = No Existence

William Dembski/Niall Shanks Intelligent Design Debate

The William Dembski and Niall Shanks debate on Intelligent Design was mutually cordial, refreshing, and enlightening. Each debater is highly regarded as an expert in his respected field and offered an apologetic from a variety of arguments from science, mathematics, history, and philosophy. Neither debater pulled any punches to get an upper hand, but the arguments given by Bill Dembski proved more reasonable and certainly worth the attention of the scientific community.

Dembski began the debate by distinguishing between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). His distinction was necessary in light of the evolutionary science claim that ID is nothing more than window dressing for religion. While Creation is defined as the doctrine of being, Creationism attempts to harmonize Scripture with science. Design focuses on taking pre-existent stuff and creating it into new things. ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. In this regard, ID is a lot like forensic science, archaeology, and SETI.

Dembski was honest in the debate and did not attempt to cut the legs out from under evolutionary science by pleading a case for all things that have an appearance of design to be labeled as ID, unlike Richard Dawkins who is looking to science to underwrite evolutionary theory. Much like William Paley, Dembski argued that proponents of ID are arguing from the data of nature for an Intelligent Designer. Opponents like Niall Shanks contend that there are other options for biological complexity other than the Christian God. Evolutionary theorists are handicapped by their dependency of evolutionary theory and its inability to look forward as a science. Natural selection is an instant gratification to the evolutionary process that depends on imminent resources to survive and reproduce. Dembski’s analogy of a pogo stick as a means to reach the top of Mount Everest helps to understand how a gradual process like natural selection is deficient in explaining the kind of engineering that scientists have discovered inside cells.

Niall Shanks concluded from the principle metaphor of the body as a machine that just because machines have designers and the body is a machine does not mean the body was created by a designer. It seems to me that a more complex machine like the human body would require much greater design by a great designer than a supercomputer or Jarvik-7. To his credit, Shanks admits that his metaphor does not rule out ID; however, he only considers it to be a great theory. His attempt to prove in the Viking picture from Mars that not all things have an appearance of design are designed was quite a stretch. The difference between that picture (no designer) and the one of Mount Rushmore (designer) was complexity, a key component to ID. Shanks was right in saying that we must be self critical about science, religion, and theology. Parameters are necessary for good practice and should consist of qualifiers that isolate specific criteria to explain results; otherwise, the end result will only be what the scientist wants it to be.

Like many evolutionary scientists, Shanks wants to see the designer of ID or at least a “watermark” of evidence that uniquely identifies the designer. Could that “watermark” be evidenced in the unique fingerprints of each human being? Nevertheless, Shanks believes that we need to establish a chain of causation. His mock court trial attempted to establish a chain of causation to trace a replicated cell back to the murder suspect [Shanks]; however, causation itself is inadequate apart from knowing that Behe possessed the necessary resources to replicate the cell. One might understand Shanks conclusion as being logical, but how many of us have concluded that a certain thing was designed regardless of knowing who the designer was; what’s more, whether or not s/he possessed the resources to design it.

I agree with Dembski that Shanks’ “watermark” requirement is nothing more than a reason not to believe ID at all. What if, like Dembski asked, the info packed within the genome is even more packed? Furthermore, where did our understanding of design come from? Logic and reason help us deduce with great accuracy things that have been designed from those that have not. No one can deny that design exists regardless of what we know about the designer. Dembski is on point in seeking reliable criteria to discover signs of intelligence to rule out chance and necessity. According to Dembski, the Law of Conservation helps track the entry and exit points of specified complexity in a natural process. ID says nothing about the nature of intelligence, but that intelligence exists. This makes the burden lighter for ID because ID doesn’t need to show that every aspect of Biology is designed, but only that some are.

Shanks’ portrayal of the history of ID was interesting. Shanks wanted history to prove that the subject of ID has been ongoing and without resolve; a matter that may not be worth pursuing as much as proponents of ID would like to believe. If Newton and Leibnitz couldn't agree then perhaps Dembski and Shanks or any future debate on ID wouldn’t find any resolve either. Shanks attempted to soften the light on Darwin by portraying him as theist who turned agnostic. According to Shanks, at one point, Darwin did believe in a first cause, but later in his life he never could reconcile the problem of evil after his daughter Annie had died.

Dembski’s argument against the life of Darwin was somewhat cursory, only mentioning that he believed Darwin was indeed more than an agnostic at the end of his life. Dembski’s life history of being reared in a home that tipped its hat to evolutionary theory was surprising. One must certainly ask, “Why a change of heart Bill?” I thought that Dembski’s statement that evolution shows design, but that no designer is necessary is one of the most reasonable and truthful statements he gave. The belief of original sin and man’s desire to be like God can not be isolated from his statement. If evolutionary theory removes purpose and meaning, then man has fulfilled his desire to become like God.