Interesting thoughts, enjoyed it.  I think, however, it misses an entire afterstep, it underscores the ability of consciousness and its role in deciphering the true from the untrue.  Evolution produced in humans a higher cognitive ability, the step that Lewis's argument misses here is that with the useful came a tool for figuring out the true. 

***"if man is not the responsible causal agent in nature, then we cannot legally be held accountable for sin."***

This is particularly interesting, can you expand on your thoughts here?

Peace!
Mark
 

Hey Mark,

In all fairness...I wrote this blog to infuriate the YEC and didn't aim to flesh out or defend Lewis' argument against naturalism.

You also ask about my statement concerning man being the responsible causal agent in nature.  In a conversation on another blog I suggested that it might be prudent to present a fully formed argument for this (for the benefit of Mr. ScanMan.) So, since you've also asked about it, I may go ahead and publish something soon.

In short:  classic reformed theology posits that God is omniscient, and omnipotent...and yet is not responsible for Evil.  The orthodox reformed position holds that God...while being the primary causal agent of evil, is not the author of it (in that he is not responsible for it.)  Man...on the other-hand...is the responsible causal agent (in nature) of evil, and therefore, is legally accountable by God's law, for carrying out of his sin.  Now...I understand that you as an atheist will have all sorts of problems with this reformed position...but the argument is aimed at the Christian.

So...if you were a Christian, then the above theology must be appealed to in order to explain "evil."  It's the case then, that if man were NOT the responsible causal agent in nature, that he could not legally be held accountable for sin...and Christ's death was in vain.  The Christian who posits some form of theistic evolution is saying that God works out His will for man by manipulating natural forces to bring about man...man's choices, man's diversity, man's dilemma's, etc.  This appeal to theistic evolution makes nature the responsible causal agent, (not man) therefore...the theistic evolutionist can no longer legitimately answer the problem of evil in the historic orthodox way.

Many non-reformed Christians may try to answer the "problem of evil" in some way other than by appeal to historic reformed theology...if they do so, then the Atheist (like you) is ready and waiting to point out how ridiculous their posited God (and resulting system) is.  And, rightly so.

So...if some Christian presents to you some idea of theistic evolution, you can reply that if such were true, that particular Christian's entire religion is absurd (since Christ died for nothing.)

I call this my "economical argument against theistic evolution" and have here only presented a summary.  I intend to write it out in an article where I tie up the loose ends and draw a very strong conclusion.

 

Good Blog...

God is responsible for everything...everything. Good and Evil.

Satan serves at God's discretion...Satan may think that he has free will...but it is an illusion.

Job serves as a prime example. I don't think I need to elaborate...the first few chapters do all of the 'splainin'.

Look at the Garden...prime example...total setup.

What father would set his child loose in a playroom with fun toys and good things to eat and then set a lovely looking 'poisoned' lollipop in the middle of the room, and then tell his child not to eat it?  Come on...

Either the Garden account was a fanciful fabrication of a tale told around the campfires, or God intentionally planned the whole fall for a reason.  Strangely enough, I choose the latter.

Even, with all of this in mind, I do not resent God...I honestly believe that he had no other choice...God has set an elaborate universal machine into motion that is producing his children, his friends.

I cannot account for the suffering that his creation has and is going through at the hands of this universe and 'evil' men, but I am sure that in the end, the contrast of his love and reward to what was endured will be overwhelming, causing the 'chaff' of our existence to be burned away, leaving only the good.

Peace

 

Thanks Scan,

I intend to write out my "Economic Argument Against Theistic Evolution" analytically at some point.  I'll number my premises and flesh out each one in an easy to follow format so that no one will confuse what I'm trying to say.

If there are any flaws in it, I hope to have them worked out through any discussion the blog generates either here, or in the various other places I may post it.  I intend it to include long-age models like those of Hugh Ross, and the day-age of Kline, and others.

 

Shotgun, in your comment you wrote:

//"The Christian who posits some form of theistic evolution is saying that God works out His will for man by manipulating natural forces to bring about man...man's choices, man's diversity, man's dilemma's, etc.  This appeal to theistic evolution makes nature the responsible causal agent, (not man) therefore...the theistic evolutionist can no longer legitimately answer the problem of evil in the historic orthodox way."//

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of our twentieth/twenty-first century understanding of the Genesis text in the first place. God did not have a physical body as we do (other than the possibility of a different dimensional physiology which 'spirit' may allude to). If God did not use physical hands to form Adam in the dust, then how did He do it and what did He use? These are all things that I have been pondering for a while now.

Also, there seems to always be differences in the meaning of evolution. I was recently debating one particularly antagonistic atheist who balked at my use of Neo-Darwinism and Meta-Darwinism as they were absurd. I have also been scolded for calling it 'natural methodological evolution' (from Phillip Johnson). At any rate it would seem that to hold your high standard of accountability in a consistent manner, God would be charged as guilty whether He formed man immediately or through some sort of process that He arranged. I hesitate using the term 'natural' here because I am trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of the word. It seems too self-serving for the atheist to use against the very God who created nature.

Godspeed!

JP



 

That is a very relavent critique JP...one I haven't thought of or heard before.  I dont' think it savages the argument though, but I'll have to seriously think it through.

Hearing relevent criticism is very valuable to me...thanks alot!