Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: COMMENTS FROM THE FRONTLINE
Message-ID: <212@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 03:04:16 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.212
Posted: Mon Feb 18 03:04:16 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 03:43:45 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 59

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Duncan A. Buell" <buell%lsu.csnet>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Ray Miller, University of Illinois, writes:
    "As I have often stated, the premise is that all organisms were
     created in perfect organization & were functionally complete.
     ...
     This [disease?] is one of the consequences of deviating from the
     initial condition in which we were created.
     ...
     This is a theological question.  Evil implies morality.
     ...
     The ultimate root cause is that it is a direct consequence of
     our fall from our initial condition in which we were created.
     ...
     Here, however, I must cry foul.  You ask a theological question
     (what is the purpose behind evil & diseases) & then restrict
     answers to nontheological territory."

(I have excerpted, but I don't think I have taken anything out of context
given what I am now about to say.)

QUESTION 1:  What  do you  mean by "perfect"  and is that not some sort of
value judgement which is itself theological?  Who indeed should call foul?
IF  the  purpose of creation is continuance of  the creation (which sounds
suspiciously  like  "nature  red  in  tooth  and  claw")  then one sort of
"perfection"  might be  implied.  IF,  on the  other hand,  the purpose of
creation  was the extinction of the  creation, then total sexual sterility
of  the created  organisms would be an attribute  necessary in order to be
called  "perfect".   Indeed, can   we separate a concept of "perfect" from
the  functional concept "perfect for the intended purpose?"   A third sort
of  perfect  organism  would be  one that  unquestioningly  worshipped its
creator, if "perfection" were to imply that sort of worship.

QUESTION 2:   How  does  a perfect organism deviate?   If it possesses the
ability  to deviate,  isn't it imperfect?   If it possesses the ability to
"fall," isn't it imperfect?   I am talking here  about chemistry, biology,
and physics,  and  not about  morality or  "free will."  To be scientific,
don't you  have to assume that  these "deviations" have some natural cause
rather  than vengeful,  malicious, or perhaps  simply idle  random genetic
bit twiddling on the part of the creator?

QUESTION 3:   Aren't  all of Miller's  statements and both of my questions
theological and not scientific?   None of this, either his or mine, sounds
new to  me.   The best philosophers  and theologians  of the last  several
thousand years have discussed and debated (and occasionally been arrested,
burned, excommunicated, or exiled) such things as free will, original sin,
the nature  of disease,  the question of how  Satan can exist and continue
to work in the universe  if God were actually omnipotent.   Is any of this
something  that can be  examined on a scientific basis without recourse to
speculation about the nature of a supernatural being?
free will, original sin,  and the like.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF COMMENT