Thank God for Evolution

[Jose Fly]

well the bad is just a human POV,

Of course it is. You have a non-human POV to refer us to?

and we have no idea if a 'god' would share that view, either that or he has made the bad to enhance the good, how do you know when something is good if you have nothing bad to compare it to.

But there's a difference between "some bad so you can appreciate the good" and ridiculous, extreme "bad" for billions of years.

in the matrix films agent smith mentions a matrix 1.0 in which the world was perfect and nothing bad happened, the entire thing was a failure as humanity could not handle it. maybe the same is true for life - if everything was perfect we would 'fail' and be unable to cope.

Sorry, I don't find movie plots to be valid rebuttals.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Of course it is. You have a non-human POV to refer us to?


But there's a difference between "some bad so you can appreciate the good" and ridiculous, extreme "bad" for billions of years.


Sorry, I don't find movie plots to be valid rebuttals.

Picky! Picky!

You need to expand your horizons and see from an "eternal" perspective.

 

[ragordon168]

Of course it is. You have a non-human POV to refer us to?

obviously not but it is highly unlikely that any alien cultures would share identical views on good and bad.

But there's a difference between "some bad so you can appreciate the good" and ridiculous, extreme "bad" for billions of years.

then how about experimental method. god is a scientist who made this universe like we make germ cultures. he cant eliminate the bad as this would ruin his results.

Sorry, I don't find movie plots to be valid rebuttals.

but bible quotes are ok?

how about garden of eden, paradise and humanity f**ks up as we cant handle perfection and need a little chaos and disaster to function.

 

[Dunemeister]

Because humans are just another species in the tree of life. We're distinguished by our technology. But we arrived as a product of environmental pressures and a small bit of chance.

You can't have a "small bit of" chance. Randomness is an all-or-nothing affair. That terminological issue aside, though, there's a lot that distinguishes us from other species besides our technology. Our moral and religious capacities, for instance. And as for how we arrived, you may be right about the causal story. All "theistic" does is add telos. That need not be objectionable, even for scientists.

Why don't they need to be forgiven? Why do humans only bear the brunt of obtaining forgiveness?

Animals haven't sinned, so they have nothing to be forgiven for. It's we humans who have moral responsibilities that we fail to live up to, not animals.

Like I said, we're just another species.

Well, you may think so, but the question is whether the notion of "theistic evolution" makes sense, not whether it is true. I say it does. You say it doesn't because it puts humankind on an unjustified pedestal. But the notion of theistic evolution doesn't change the causal story other than to push it back a step and add God as either the initiator or (and) guider of the process. That additional step doesn't threaten such scientific sacred cows as observability or testability. As an account of origins, naturalistic and theistic evolution are observationally and explanatorally equivalent (from a scientific point of view). Another thing theistic evolution adds is telos or purpose. Again, this can be unobjectionable even from a scientific perspective. Even if God had some purpose in evolution, and even if humans play some central role in the universe, those facts (if they are facts) needn't perturb the scientist or put a spanner in his works.

Theistic evolution affirms that humans are another species all right, but there is something special about it in that it, and no other species, bears the image of God.

Because that wouldn't be compatible with the Theory of Evolution and hence it couldn't really be called theistic evolution.

Note: "that" is the idea that our evolutionary inheritance is a gift from God.

I'm unsure why this is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Ye gotchyer mutations and ye gotchyer natural selection (throw in genetic drift for good measure). Isn't that evolution? A series of mutations and natural pressures produced us. You can't seriously be suggesting that the theory of evolution absolutely demands that the mutations all be random, can you? And that the suggestion that the mutations may have been planned automatically renders the term "evolution" invalid? If so, I can only say that you are working awfully hard to protect a word from imaginary harm, and I wonder why you take the trouble.

I thought God was omniscient? He would have known this would happen long before he laid down the bricks for evolution.

Yes, presumably. God would have known that we would treat animals cruelly. But it is still OUR action, not God's. It is OUR fault, not his. And he will definitely hold us to account for it. (Theistic evolution forces one to look both ways -- backward in time and forward in time.)

I'm pretty sure the idea just isn't compatible with evolution..

Okay, but so far I haven't heard any good reason for thinking so.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You can't have a "small bit of" chance. Randomness is an all-or-nothing affair. That terminological issue aside, though, there's a lot that distinguishes us from other species besides our technology. Our moral and religious capacities, for instance. And as for how we arrived, you may be right about the causal story. All "theistic" does is add telos. That need not be objectionable, even for scientists.

Yes, you can. Or at the very least you misunderstood me.

Take the affair of atoms in a molecule bonding. In order for them to bond, two main things need to happen. Firstly, there must be enough activation energy for the atoms to bond. Secondly, the atoms must be positioned in the correct way. If either of these things aren't present, no bond.

The activation energy is a non-chance factor. Either you have enough energy or you don't. But the correct positioning is a chance factor because the atoms are constantly moving around in a given space. If they aren't positioned correctly at a given instant, they may be at the next.

This is precisely why increasing the surface area of a reactant will increase the rate of reaction. More reactant is available and therefore you have a higher chance of atoms colliding at the proper position.

Compare this to evolution. For evolution to happen, two main things are required. Firstly, you need environmental pressures. Secondly, you need random genetic mutations.

Environmental pressures are a non-chance factor. Either the pressures are there or they aren't. But random genetic mutations are a chance factor because their effects are dependent on the random miscopying of the genetic code. It can turn out to be a positive effect, a negative effect, or neutral.

Evolution is not an all-out chance process. When one species transitions into another it is because of environmental pressures guiding which effects from chance are in the genome. So though chance plays a part in it, its part is effectly curbed by the environmental pressures which are not the result of chance, but of processes that have a distinct cause and effect.

Animals haven't sinned, so they have nothing to be forgiven for. It's we humans who have moral responsibilities that we fail to live up to, not animals.

Animals kill and commit adultery all the time. Hell, some do both at the same time (try the insect world for starters).

Well, you may think so, but the question is whether the notion of "theistic evolution" makes sense, not whether it is true. I say it does. You say it doesn't because it puts humankind on an unjustified pedestal. But the notion of theistic evolution doesn't change the causal story other than to push it back a step and add God as either the initiator or (and) guider of the process. That additional step doesn't threaten such scientific sacred cows as observability or testability. As an account of origins, naturalistic and theistic evolution are observationally and explanatorally equivalent (from a scientific point of view). Another thing theistic evolution adds is telos or purpose. Again, this can be unobjectionable even from a scientific perspective. Even if God had some purpose in evolution, and even if humans play some central role in the universe, those facts (if they are facts) needn't perturb the scientist or put a spanner in his works.

Theistic evolution affirms that humans are another species all right, but there is something special about it in that it, and no other species, bears the image of God.

Not exactly. I say it doesn't make sense because it would suggest God guides evolution to eventually produce humans. For that to happen, evolution would be totally non-random because it would have a distinct objective of eventually producing humans.

My point about the unjustified pedestal is due to humans being (apparently) in the eyes of God "worth more". God sacrifices his son (who comes to Earth as a human). God focuses on human sins and their need to be negated with forgiveness. Yet, it doesn't concern itself much with lowly animals.

We ARE just another species in the tree of life and if you accept evolution, this is undeniable.

Note: "that" is the idea that our evolutionary inheritance is a gift from God.

I'm unsure why this is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Ye gotchyer mutations and ye gotchyer natural selection (throw in genetic drift for good measure). Isn't that evolution? A series of mutations and natural pressures produced us. You can't seriously be suggesting that the theory of evolution absolutely demands that the mutations all be random, can you? And that the suggestion that the mutations may have been planned automatically renders the term "evolution" invalid? If so, I can only say that you are working awfully hard to protect a word from imaginary harm, and I wonder why you take the trouble.

The errors in copying the genetic code produce the mutations. There is no process to the errors. If God was guiding the hand of it, there would be no reason for God to produce mutations that would be harmful to us. Yet, we do see mutations that are harmful to us.

If God was guiding these mutations to produce humans (presumably as the endpoint of our evolution), we wouldn't see any of these harmful mutations. This is why it makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't take much effort to point this out.

Yes, presumably. God would have known that we would treat animals cruelly. But it is still OUR action, not God's. It is OUR fault, not his. And he will definitely hold us to account for it. (Theistic evolution forces one to look both ways -- backward in time and forward in time.)

Pretend for a moment you are proficient in robotics. You know that because of your computer programming you have created a robot that can think and learn and move all on its own. You know that if it learns the wrong things, it will commit some horrible actions. You know it is inevitable that this robot will learn the wrong things and this will happen (also pretend you are omniscient). Do you create the robot?

If you do create the robot and it kills toddlers, are you responsible for it? Or is the robot responsible, who is only following the code YOU wrote that ultimately controls it?

Okay, but so far I haven't heard any good reason for thinking so.

Hopefully from what you've read in this post that will have changed.

 

[Dunemeister]

Compare this to evolution. For evolution to happen, two main things are required. Firstly, you need environmental pressures. Secondly, you need random genetic mutations.

They don't "need" to be random.

Evolution is not an all-out chance process.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the concept of "randomness" cannot come in degrees. Either a process is random or it isn't.

Animals kill and commit adultery all the time. Hell, some do both at the same time (try the insect world for starters).

For them, it's not murder or adultery. Their actions are not judged morally because they don't bear the image of God and therefore are not judged on moral grounds.

Not exactly. I say it doesn't make sense because it would suggest God guides evolution to eventually produce humans. For that to happen, evolution would be totally non-random because it would have a distinct objective of eventually producing humans.

The end product may have been predetermined but the pathway needn't have been.

My point about the unjustified pedestal is due to humans being (apparently) in the eyes of God "worth more". God sacrifices his son (who comes to Earth as a human). God focuses on human sins and their need to be negated with forgiveness. Yet, it doesn't concern itself much with lowly animals.

Of course it does. Read Romans 8.

We ARE just another species in the tree of life and if you accept evolution, this is undeniable.

No, if I accept ATHEISTIC evolution, this follows.

The errors in copying the genetic code produce the mutations. There is no process to the errors.

This is true only if ATHEISTIC evolution is true. If THEISTIC evolution is true, the "errors" in copying are intentional rather than random.

If God was guiding the hand of it, there would be no reason for God to produce mutations that would be harmful to us. Yet, we do see mutations that are harmful to us.

Perhaps the harmful mutations are a necessary byproduct of getting the beneficial ones? I dunno. Even if this is unacceptable, how do you know there is no reason?

If God was guiding these mutations to produce humans (presumably as the endpoint of our evolution), we wouldn't see any of these harmful mutations. This is why it makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't take much effort to point this out.

Presumption on stilts.

Pretend for a moment you are proficient in robotics. You know that because of your computer programming you have created a robot that can think and learn and move all on its own. You know that if it learns the wrong things, it will commit some horrible actions. You know it is inevitable that this robot will learn the wrong things and this will happen (also pretend you are omniscient). Do you create the robot?

I can't pretend to be omniscient. I also can't pretend to be omnibenevolent or omnipotent. I don't even know how to get started with humoring this game.

If you do create the robot and it kills toddlers, are you responsible for it? Or is the robot responsible, who is only following the code YOU wrote that ultimately controls it?

Well, what makes you think that humans are like robots in that they only follow some kind of software? I happen to think that humans are a tad bit more wonderful and dignified than that.

Hopefully from what you've read in this post that will have changed.

Alas, no.

 

[lunamoth]

CM is correct in his explanation of the randomness of genetic mutations (well done!).

But, what if God is one of the selective pressures, rather than the causer/tweaker of mutations?

 

[Nothing]

I must agree with you athiests, that the Abrahamic God does not exist. However I do believe there is a Source from which all things came from and that It is alive and well.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[mr.guy]

... I do believe there is a Source from which all things came from and that It is alive and well..

 

[Dunemeister]

CM is correct in his explanation of the randomness of genetic mutations (well done!).

All he has done is asserted that they are random. He hasn't shown that they need to be. It's entirely possible that they are random only from our point of view because we can't see a discernible pattern. That would make sense if they occur as a result of God's will, which is (ex hypothesis) inscrutible.

But, what if God is one of the selective pressures, rather than the causer/tweaker of mutations?

I personally hadn't thought of that, but I certainly agree that he would be among the selective pressures.

 

[Vile Atheist]

They don't "need" to be random.

You're right. They don't need to be. But they are.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the concept of "randomness" cannot come in degrees. Either a process is random or it isn't.

Well then you'd be correct. In the case of evolution, environmental pressures are non-random. Genetic mutations are.

For them, it's not murder or adultery. Their actions are not judged morally because they don't bear the image of God and therefore are not judged on moral grounds.

Wait a minute here. So God decided one day to create humans because he was bored with just bacteria for so long and then said "Poof! I'm going to make you guys accountable for all you do, but the other furry ******** can kill each other all they wish"?

The end product may have been predetermined but the pathway needn't have been.

What reason would there be for God not to take the most efficient, direct pathway?

Of course it does. Read Romans 8.

Not to the extent humans are concerned.

No, if I accept ATHEISTIC evolution, this follows.

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not include a God. But that does not make it atheistic. Do you believe in ATHEISTIC gravity? Or is there a theistic version I'm unaware of? If so, why don't you believe in theistic gravity?

No, it's called Theistic Evolution because people are uncomfortable with humans rising up as a combination of random genetic mutation and environmental processes and evolution conflicts with some people's version of God. How, depends on their theology. So theistic evolution is simply the Theory of Evolution with the bald assertion that God was the originator. This is unsupported. But the Theory of Evolution is.

Ergo, if you go by the Theory of Evolution, it's an undeniable fact. If you include a bald, unsupported assertion, then that will clearly take you down a different trail.

This is true only if ATHEISTIC evolution is true. If THEISTIC evolution is true, the "errors" in copying are intentional rather than random.

You would argue that God has purposely created harmful mutations? Your point, not mine...

Perhaps the harmful mutations are a necessary byproduct of getting the beneficial ones? I dunno. Even if this is unacceptable, how do you know there is no reason?

Theistic evolution is what you're endorsing. Why on Earth would I attempt to suppport it by speculating a reason for harmful mutations? This is your theory, not mine. You tell me.

Presumption on stilts.

So you would argue that God dicks around with evolution to produce harmful mutations in us? I think that's a fair presumption, that if God was at the helm of evolution, he'd be taking the shortest, most efficient, most beneficial route to the end product of humans.

I can't pretend to be omniscient. I also can't pretend to be omnibenevolent or omnipotent. I don't even know how to get started with humoring this game.

Good dodge. However, I'll connect the dots for you.

Robot = human.
You (the robot engineer) = God.
Computer Code = DNA

You, as God, create a human. You are in control of its DNA (which will determine what it looks like and what it is predisposed to do). You know (since you are omniscient) that if you create this human, he will kill toddlers. Do you - as God - create that human?

And if you do, who is responsible? The robot, though it was only following the DNA YOU dicked around with? Or you, the dicker-around of the DNA?

Well, what makes you think that humans are like robots in that they only follow some kind of software? I happen to think that humans are a tad bit more wonderful and dignified than that.

Our brain chemistry - and by extension, our emotions - are governed by our genetics. My genetics may predispose me to act in a certain way. Or respond to different kinds of situations differently. The analogy between DNA and a computer software program isn't perfect, but it's fairly accurate. This is why I built my robot analogy the way I did. With a robot who can think and learn and move on its own.

Alas, no.

Your loss.

 

[Vile Atheist]

All he has done is asserted that they are random. He hasn't shown that they need to be. It's entirely possible that they are random only from our point of view because we can't see a discernible pattern. That would make sense if they occur as a result of God's will, which is (ex hypothesis) inscrutible.

How about this one. If God guides the mutations to produce whatever he pleases, why are there mechanisms in the body to CORRECT mutations? Is that God too? If not, why?

I personally hadn't thought of that, but I certainly agree that he would be among the selective pressures.

Really? I'm surprised. I once mentioned this alternative. Either it was to you or to PureX. But since you don't remember, maybe it was PureX.

I remember at the time saying it was a much stronger argument to argue that God controls the environmental pressures, but not the mutations for that very reason.

 

[Vile Atheist]

CM is correct in his explanation of the randomness of genetic mutations (well done!).

But, what if God is one of the selective pressures, rather than the causer/tweaker of mutations?

Excellent question. I mentioned this as an alternative argument to the tweaker argument to either Dunemeister or PureX, but since Dunemeister doesn't remember, perhaps it was PureX. It's a lot stronger than saying God fiddles around with the mutations.

There are a few problems though.

For one, how do you test that hypothesis? In order to do that, God has to be well-defined and predictions need to be made. If it is assumed that humans are the end-product of evolution, a prediction might be that humans are no longer evolving, perhaps?

For another, if God was controlling our environment, how do we explain the periods of time when our environment was extremely hostile towards us? Remember, what is meant by "environment" is not just how lovely the air smells. It includes predators and prey. Just look at the evolution of primates, for one. If this was the case, we would have to conclude that God is creating a hostile environment for us, which is not necessary for us to evolve when the same can be accomplished with a slow, dynamic environment that isn't necessarily hostile.

 

[lunamoth]

Excellent question. I mentioned this as an alternative argument to the tweaker argument to either Dunemeister or PureX, but since Dunemeister doesn't remember, perhaps it was PureX. It's a lot stronger than saying God fiddles around with the mutations.

There are a few problems though.

For one, how do you test that hypothesis? In order to do that, God has to be well-defined and predictions need to be made. If it is assumed that humans are the end-product of evolution, a prediction might be that humans are no longer evolving, perhaps?

For another, if God was controlling our environment, how do we explain the periods of time when our environment was extremely hostile towards us? Remember, what is meant by "environment" is not just how lovely the air smells. It includes predators and prey. Just look at the evolution of primates, for one. If this was the case, we would have to conclude that God is creating a hostile environment for us, which is not necessary for us to evolve when the same can be accomplished with a slow, dynamic environment that isn't necessarily hostile.

I don't mean that God tweaks the environment either, but that God is a selective pressure in Godself. God as a form that we are being poured into.

It is not meant to be a scientifically testable hypothesis. It is a faith statement meant to be consistent with the observations.

As for the 'hostility' of the environment, I disagree. It is a creative environment. Extinction is just as big a part of evolution as the introduction of novel genes/gene combinations. What is interesting about evolution as a creative tool is the element of freedom it represents. Free creatures achieved through free processes. That is why your robot analogy falls short. It is not created by a free process, and so the product is also not morally autonomous.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I don't mean that God tweaks the environment either, but that God is a selective pressure in Godself. God as a form that we are being poured into.

It is not meant to be a scientifically testable hypothesis. It is a faith statement meant to be consistent with the observations.

As for the 'hostility' of the environment, I disagree. It is a creative environment. Extinction is just as big a part of evolution as the introduction of novel genes/gene combinations. What is interesting about evolution as a creative tool is the element of freedom it represents. Free creatures achieved through free processes. That is why your robot analogy falls short. It is not created by a free process, and so the product is also not morally autonomous.

If that's the case, then I don't know what you mean by that nor how that is consistent with our current observations.

 

[Jose Fly]

obviously not but it is highly unlikely that any alien cultures would share identical views on good and bad.

We have no idea, so trying to debate this point is nothing more than idle speculation.

then how about experimental method. god is a scientist who made this universe like we make germ cultures. he cant eliminate the bad as this would ruin his results.

Sure, that's possible. But that brings us back to what I stated at the beginning: What kind of "god" does that leave us? We're nothing more than experimental organisms whose suffering is secondary to his "results"? If that's the sort of "god" people want to believe in.....

but bible quotes are ok?

???????

how about garden of eden, paradise and humanity f**ks up as we cant handle perfection and need a little chaos and disaster to function.

Yeah....again, there's a difference between "I'm going to make thorns to prick you now and then" and "Here's botulism, malaria, ebola, cholera, cancer, tuberculosis, influenza, arthritis, and an almost infinite host of other diseases, pestilence, and other horrors to haunt almost every aspect of your existence".

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm curious what aspects of evolution god controls under "theistic evolution". Does this god control all of it, some of it, or very, very little of it? And which specific parts?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm curious what aspects of evolution god controls under "theistic evolution". Does this god control all of it, some of it, or very, very little of it? And which specific parts?

There are three main arguments I've heard:

(1) God controls what mutations occur. This makes absolutely no sense.

(2) God controls the environmental pressures. This makes a little more sense.

(3) God is of itself an environmental pressure. I'm not too sure what that means....

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yeah....again, there's a difference between "I'm going to make thorns to prick you now and then" and "Here's botulism, malaria, ebola, cholera, cancer, tuberculosis, influenza, arthritis, and an almost infinite host of other diseases, pestilence, and other horrors to haunt almost every aspect of your existence".

Not to mention natural disasters and hostile environments.

 

[Dunemeister]

You're right. They don't need to be. But they are.

How would we know that? Perhaps they are random only as far as we know. How could we distinguish between "random" and "occurs by virtue of God's decision which he makes according to inscrutable reasons of his own"?

Well then you'd be correct. In the case of evolution, environmental pressures are non-random. Genetic mutations are.

Again, why can't I affirm that the mutations are not really random but occur as a result of God's planning or directing, the reasons for which are simply beyond us (either just in fact or in principle)?

What reason would there be for God not to take the most efficient, direct pathway?

What makes you think he didn't? Is there a more efficient way to create a universe with sentient creatures with the moral capacity to responsibly care for creation and freely love each other and God? How could anyone claim to know that there's a better way without displaying the most disgusting and heinous hubris?

And why should God care about efficiency and directness? Here you presume that God's values perfectly match those of the bureaucrat. Why presume that?

Not to the extent humans are concerned.

You didn't read Romans 8, did you? <sigh>

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not include a God. But that does not make it atheistic. Do you believe in ATHEISTIC gravity? Or is there a theistic version I'm unaware of? If so, why don't you believe in theistic gravity?

No, I don't believe in atheistic gravity. Gravity is theistic in the sense that gravity describes God's typical activity in the universe. What else could it do if you're a theist? God created all (other) things and bestowed on them the properties they have. God upholds all things in existence. Thus gravity becomes an expression of God's (highly generalized and impersonalized) will for creation. It behaves this way because he wants it to.

By "atheistic evolution" I mean to say that the metaphysical assumption you are operating with is atheistic. If you're an atheist, evolution has one meaning; if you're a theist, it has another related but slightly different one. For the athiest, evolution cannot have a cause for the mutations nor a purposive direction. For the theist it can have the first and must have the second. Either way, the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory remain the same. Either way, we have evolutionary mechanisms. On a theistic understanding, these mechanisms are not independent of the will of God.

No, it's called Theistic Evolution because people are uncomfortable with humans rising up as a combination of random genetic mutation and environmental processes and evolution conflicts with some people's version of God. How, depends on their theology. So theistic evolution is simply the Theory of Evolution with the bald assertion that God was the originator. This is unsupported. But the Theory of Evolution is.

Well, the "theistic" part of theistic evolution isn't scientific. So it's no surprising that it is unsupported by science. It needn't be. It's a theological aspect to the theory and therefore needs to be evaluated in different terms.

Ergo, if you go by the Theory of Evolution, it's an undeniable fact. If you include a bald, unsupported assertion, then that will clearly take you down a different trail.

Be careful about these "undeniable" facts. They tend to change on us. So I only accept the provisional undeniability of ToE. As for the "bald, unsupported assertion" of theism, I beg to differ. I think there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, but those arguments are unimportant for our current purposes. You said that "theistic evolution" makes no sense on a monotheistic understanding of God. I have been arguing that the idea of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism. The notion of evolution changes slightly with the addition of divine actions and purposes, but it's important to see that these changes don't change the nature of the scientific game. Even if theistic evolution were true, scientists could still go about their business as they always have done. They look for patterns, natural laws, and so forth. From a theistic perspective, this is exactly what we should expect given that God has created an ordered universe in order to support life.

You would argue that God has purposely created harmful mutations? Your point, not mine...

Whenever you design something, you begin with a list of desiderata -- what you want the end product to be like. During production, you may find that some of these desiderata conflict to one degree or another, and as a result, you have to make design compromises. Or you may find that in order to get the end product you want, you have to accept certain undesirable effects either during the production process or in the end product itself. These undesirable effects are not "purposely created" but are tolerated for the sake of the end product, which is considered to be worthwhile despite them.

Note: If evolutionary theory is true, God is not finished with the production phase. This is also true on a Christian theistic point of view. Christian theism affirms that there will be a Day on which all things are set to rights, including what we see now as "harmful mutations" and various forms of what we tend to call natural evils. They are not permanent features of the creation, but only temporarily tolerated.

Theistic evolution is what you're endorsing. Why on Earth would I attempt to suppport it by speculating a reason for harmful mutations? This is your theory, not mine. You tell me.

Christian Theism isn't a theory. It's a worldview into which I fit theories such as evolution. In any case, I don't need to provide a reason for harmful mutations; I only need to show that their presence doesn't indicate that theism is false.

So you would argue that God dicks around with evolution to produce harmful mutations in us? I think that's a fair presumption, that if God was at the helm of evolution, he'd be taking the shortest, most efficient, most beneficial route to the end product of humans.

You call it "dicks around" because you haven't a clue what you're talking about. How exactly does one go about creating a universe with sentient creatures with the moral capacity to responsibly care for creation and freely love each other and God? Give three examples of how it has been done and compare them for us.

If evolution is the way it appears God has done it, it follows that this is the best way to do it (in every sense of the word "best"). If it turns out that this way involves problems and puzzles, so be it. It's presumptuous to say that God could have taken a shorter, more efficient, more beneficial route. It is presumptious, first, to assume that "shorter" and "more efficient" entail "more beneficial." It is also presumtuous to say we know more about making a universe including free moral agents than God does.

Robot = human.
You (the robot engineer) = God.
Computer Code = DNA

You, as God, create a human. You are in control of its DNA (which will determine what it looks like and what it is predisposed to do). You know (since you are omniscient) that if you create this human, he will kill toddlers. Do you - as God - create that human?

And if you do, who is responsible? The robot, though it was only following the DNA YOU dicked around with? Or you, the dicker-around of the DNA?

No dodge involved. You presume that the DNA determines everything the creature does. I don't. Christian theism affirms that God has bestowed his image on humankind. That means, among other things, that we can be responsible moral agents. So we are not determined to do any immoral act by virtue of our DNA. We ought to, and therefore can, love our neighbours rather than murder them, even if we'd rather murder them.

Our brain chemistry - and by extension, our emotions - are governed by our genetics. My genetics may predispose me to act in a certain way. Or respond to different kinds of situations differently. The analogy between DNA and a computer software program isn't perfect, but it's fairly accurate. This is why I built my robot analogy the way I did. With a robot who can think and learn and move on its own.

I have no argument about predispositions. But being an image-bearer means that you are not a slave of your chemistry. Also, we are social animals, and by virtue of that we form communities that are aware of and have responsibility for cultivating virtues. These things, in tandem, enable us to be more than our chemistry. As I said earlier, I think humans are much more dignified than you seem to.

Your loss.

I can't see how....