DEATH AND HOPE ( ! ) versus Tennyson's "Nature, red in tooth and claw"

DEATH AND HOPE ? ! ? ! ?

We often speak of "suffering and death" and also of "life and hope", but rarely in the same breath.

This posting is about DEATH AND HOPE - all in the same breath..

The lines of Alfred, Lord Tennyson,
"Man...Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law --
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed."
are oft and famously quoted to portray the idea that death and suffering in this world are antithetical to (and hence proof against the existence of) the Eternal Creator God of the Holy Bible, Genesis chapter one.

Two points will follow:
(1) death and suffering were not a part of God's original "very good" creation, but only followed the "fall of man"; this provides the definitive argument against theistic evolution over long ages of time; and
(2) only in death did God provide seeds of true hope ... that is, "no death, no hope."

(1) Death and suffering were not part of God's original "very good" creation:

I first became aware of Tennyson's "nature, red in tooth and claw" many years ago when I saw it quoted by the ardent antitheist George Bernard Shaw, referring to it as "bloody tooth and claw." Shaw set up not a "straw man", but a "straw god," to then knock down. Shaw's "straw god" would be so cruel as to perform the creation through a long and gradual hit-and-miss process of survival of the fittest, leaving weaker animals dragging themselves around with useless or half-formed limbs and organs to be at the complete mercy of the stronger, the eaten at the (non)mercy of the eater.

Where did George Bernard Shaw get his "straw god?" I call it a "straw" proposition because it ignores the clear teaching of scripture that all life forms were created "according to their kind" from the very beginning. Instead, Shaw took his "straw god" from theistic evolutionists who try to compromise scripture with what they incorrectly perceive to be "science". Shaw and others of his ilk actually do us a favor in pointing out the total inconsistency (or implied weakness or ineptness or uncaringness) of a "loving " God who would create by survival of the fittest.

So it seems that atheists, agnostics and God-haters have a much more precise understanding of the implications of theistic evolution than do the theistic evolutionists themselves.

Holy Scripture declares "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good." (Genesis 1:31a, NIV). Biblical creationists correctly point out that when God saw that His newly completed creation was "very good," this precludes the possibility of pre-existing death and decay implied by theistic evolution. To me, THIS IS THE MOST DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST THEISTIC EVOLUTION. The Bible provides the correct view: there was no death and decay in the "very good" creation. Death and decay only came later, as recorded in Genesis chapter 3. This "bondage to decay" is reiterated in the New Testament in Romans 8:18-25.

(2) Only in death did God provide seeds of true hope.

What father, if his child disobeys, will simply take out a gun and blow the kid away? There may here and there, now and then, be a father who would do such a thing, but for all but a very few this would be unthinkable. Loving fathers typically will invoke some correction (sometimes even inflicting a few non-PC strokes to the gludius maximus). The loving father applies the correction, even if some pain is involved, for the greater good of the child's long-term social and spiritual behavioral growth. This is a result of true "love." The love that does not correct for the greater good is not true love.

So how about the "death penalty" God assigned to man (and apparently animals as well) following Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden? Is this like a fit of anger on God's part, like the angry dad just blowing the kid away? NOT AT ALL. IN FACT, QUITE THE CONTRARY.

In the death consequence of sin, God lovingly provides the seeds of hope. As pointed out by Jonathan Sarfati (Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 2004, p. 202): "...the curse of physical death has a benefit to man, in that it prevents an even worse evil: living forever in a state of sin [and hence eternal separation from God - DU]. And it provides the means of redemption, via the physical death of the God-man Jesus Christ on the cross."

Scripture tells us:
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21, IV)


Death and hope? Hope in death? In Jesus, for sure! Without Jesus, surely not.

Respectfully submitted,

D.U.

P.S. One article that includes further discussion on "red in tooth and claw" is:
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm

"It's not fair." Paris cried. Don't worry, honey, you're not alone.

This morning I read how Hilton heiress Paris was thrown back in the slammer in LA. Fully distraught and being led away with hair and eyes a mess, Paris turned to her mom and cried imploringly, "It's not fair."

Seems like everbody on the planet, even PH, has some sense of "fairness," whether rightly or wrongly founded. This universal sense of "fair", as Christian apologist C. S. Lewis has pointed out, is yet one more evidence of divine creation and the image of God upon man.

So how about "fairness" in the origins debate? Do you want to know what may lie ahead of you if you try to inject some rationality into the irrational "molecules to man" culture of today's scientism and academia?

Here's what: viewpoint discrimination of the nastiest unfair kind.

Here are a few reads:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

And see my related blog entry a week or so ago about the author of The Privileged Planet, titled "Maybe I should have waited until I got tenure" or approximately that.

Read them and weep (literally). I especially recommend the second link, dealing with the Nobel prize denied to the inventor of the MRI clearly because he is a creationist. On that basis, Isaac Newton could have never received a Nobel prize. Nor Michael Faraday. Nor James Joule. Nor James Clerk Maxwell. Nor James Lister. Nor Louis Pasteur. Nor ......

To friends of The God of Creation: Do your homework, do good science, put on your armor, and go forth boldly.

To the enemies of creation: Your days are numbered and you are running out of places to hide. Be afraid, very afraid. If not in this life, then FOR SURE when you meet your Maker. For that appointment comes surely.

Sadly, yet respectfully,

D.U.

Ford's Faulty Foundations Faltering

Well, well. I recently received an email from the American Family Association that a boycott of Ford due to Ford's promotion of homosexual lifestyles may have contributed to a significant decline in Ford sales in May, 2007.

What's that to do with creation and evolution? Very simple. The Bible says that woman was created for man, and marriage is when the two (1 man plus 1 woman) become one (not only in a sexual way, but in purpose, goals, intent, and life).

Far distant in Ford Motor Company's rear-view mirror is the notion of being "culture war neutral." Ford has been consistently advertising and supporting pro-gay ideas and events for quite a while, and quite "in-your-face" to folks who have expressed concern. This puts Ford Motor Company directly at odds with the account of creation and the purpose and duty of man as described in the Holy Bible, the Word of God. Seems like not a good place to be.

It seems the chickens are coming home to roost. I just feel sorry for the thousands of Ford employees and dealers who would never support Ford's pro-gay advocacy, but may suffer nevertheless.

Following is the blurb from AFA:

June 8, 2007
Boycott helps drop Ford sales 6.8% in May
General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota sales increase during same period

For the 13th month out of the last 15, the boycott of Ford Motor Company by AFA and other pro-family groups has helped cause Ford to lose sales. Sales dropped 6.8% during May when compared with May 2006.
The drop came as sales for GM [up 9.6%], Chrysler [up 4.3%] and Toyota [up 14%] were all increasing. Of the big four, only Ford showed a loss.
AFA has identified Ford as a leading corporate promoter of homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda. Even while losing billions of dollars and laying off of thousands of employees, Ford continues to financially support various homosexual groups.

So, there ya go. Whatcha gonna do 'bout it?

How about me? No more Ford purchases. And when I get rid of my old Ford van, it will not be replaced with a Ford product. Why? Because I believe the words of creation in Genesis are the Words of God, and God has a way and a will for every man and every woman. Ford's way and will seem to be in the opposite direction. I'm not going there with them.

You can find the wellspring of lots of good info about this stuff at:
www.afa.net
or the American Family Association Journal:
www.afajournal.org

Respectfully submittted,

D.U.