“The lion will lay down with the lamb.”

I don’t believe there was a fall that was predicated upon animal behavior. Therefore, I fully expect to see Wiskers in Heaven.

I admire Os in many many ways, but when in comes to debate on the issue of Darwinism, I think he is making a serious mistake by taking the side of Theistic Evolution.

I suppose his mentor Francis Schaeffer will be disappointed if he happen to be alive.

The reason why I ask is that if there is no afterlife for them, then we have a wrong (the suffering of innocent animals) that is never righted in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve been reading Dr. Dembski’s book, and I have to say that regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with it, it’s certainly the boldest and most original theodicy since that of Leibniz.

I have one question though, relating to animal suffering, which the book does not appear to address: has Dr. Dembski ever expressed an opinion regarding the possibility of some sort of afterlife for animals? The reason why I ask this if there is no afterlife for them, then we have a wrong (the suffering of innocent animals) that is never righted in the scheme of things.

“A wise, constructive rapprochement between faith and science is one of the world’s urgent needs, and this need will only intensify as the global era raises a host of new ethical issues. Few people have the expertise, wisdom, and prestige to make such a contribution. I welcome The BioLogos Foundation warmly.”

– Dr. Os Guinness,
EastWest Institute

Cancer is not evil. What is evil is not having compassion for or being able to empathize with someone who has cancer.

Innocence implies moral responsibility. It’s misguided to think that animals are guilty or innocent. How would you decide what animal behavior is wrong (or right, for that matter)?

“I think a lot of the “evil world” claim is based on the mistake of equating suffering with evil.”

How about correcting to “innocent suffering”. Suffering caused by human choice is perhaps a higher order of badness, but it is built into humans neurologically to equate suffering of all kinds with badness.

In practice, naive idealism is held in inverse proportion to the proximity to the actual situation. What about the millions in Africa who happen to have the misfortune to be born where tropical disease is endemic. Or the victims of cancer, birth defects, earthquakes, tornados, the list is endless.

“What is worse — existing without pain or existing without faith, hope and love?”

A false dichotomy. Vast amounts of truly innocent suffering exist as far as the life history of the humans involved is concerned, and is hardly mutually exclusive with at least some goodness also existing in their lives. It is a value judgement only the victim can legitimately make whether this is worth the suffering of their existence.

All of this still ignores the obvious existence of huge amounts of innocent animal suffering (the only kind in this case). In my opinion none of the theodicity arguments hold much water.