Editing Problem of evil (section)

====Critique====

=====Heaven=====
In what Russell describes as a "blistering attack by [[Wesley Wildman]]" on Southgate's theodicy, Wildman asserts that "if God really is to create a heavenly world of 'growth and change and relationality, yet no suffering', that world and not this world would be the best of all possible worlds, and a God that would not do so would be 'flagrantly morally inconsistent'."<ref name="W. Wildman">{{cite journal |last1=Wildman |first1=William J. |title=Incongruous Goodness, Perilous Beauty, Disconcerting Truth: Ultimate Reality and Suffering in Nature |journal=Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil|editor1-last=Murphy|editor1-first=Nancey C.|editor2-last=Russell|editor2-first=Robert J.|date=2007 |pages=267–294}}</ref>{{rp|290}}<ref name="Robert John Russell"/>{{rp|724}}

Southgate has responded with what he calls an extension of the original argument: "that this evolutionary environment, full as it is of both competition and decay, is the only type of creation that can give rise to creaturely selves".<ref name="Christopher Southgate"/>{{rp|90}} That means "our guess must be that though heaven can eternally preserve those selves subsisting in suffering-free relationship, it could not give rise to them in the first place".<ref name="Robert John Russell"/>{{rp|720}}<ref name="Christopher Southgate"/>{{rp|90}}

=====Randomness=====
{{ill|Thomas F. Tracy|qid=Q107183389}} offers a two-point critique: "The first is the problem of purpose: can evolutionary processes, in which chance plays so prominent a role, be understood as the context of God's purposive action? The second is the problem of the pervasiveness of suffering and death in evolution".<ref name="Thomas F. Tracy">{{cite journal |last1=Tracy |first1=Thomas F. |title=Evolutionary Theologies and Divine Action |journal=Theology and Science |date=2008 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=107–116 |doi=10.1080/14746700701806106 |s2cid=144846652 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14746700701806106}}</ref>

According to [[John Polkinghorne]], the existence of chance does not negate the power and purposes of a Creator because "it is entirely possible that contingent processes can, in fact, lead to determined ends".<ref name="PolkinghornetoTracy">{{cite journal |last1=Polkinghorne |first1=John C. |title=Evolution and Providence: A Response to Thomas Tracy |journal=Theology and Science |date=2009 |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=317–322 |doi=10.1080/14746700903239445 |s2cid=144281968 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14746700903239445}}</ref>{{rp|317–318}} But in Polkinghorne's theology, God is not a "Puppetmaster pulling every string", and his purposes are therefore general.<ref name="PolkinghornetoTracy"/>{{rp|317}} [[Francisco J. Ayala]] adds that this means "God is not the explicit designer of each facet of evolution".<ref name="Francisco J. Ayala">{{cite book |last1=Francisco J. Ayala |first1=Francisco J. Ayala |title=Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion |date=2007 |publisher=National Academies Press |isbn=9780309102315 |edition=illustrated, reprint}}</ref><ref name="Robert John Russell"/>{{rp|714}} For Polkinghorne, it is sufficient theologically to assume that "the emergence of some form of self-conscious, God-conscious being" was an aspect of divine purpose from the beginning whether God purposed humankind specifically or not.<ref name="PolkinghornetoTracy"/>{{rp|317–318}}

Polkinghorne also links the existence of human freedom to the flexibility created by randomness in the quantum world.<ref name="J. C. Polkinghorne">{{cite book |last1=Polkinghorne |first1=John C. |title=Quarks, Chaos & Christianity Questions to Science and Religion |date=2005 |publisher=Crossroad Publishing Company |isbn=9780824524067 |page=4}}</ref> Richard W. Kropf asserts that free will has its origins in the "evolutionary ramifications" of the existence of chance as part of the process, thereby providing a "causal connection" between natural evil and the possibility of human freedom: one cannot exist without the other.<ref name="Richard W. Kropf">{{cite book |last1=Kropf |first1=Richard W. |title=Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy |date=2004 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=9781725211445}}</ref>{{rp|2, 122}} Polkinghorne writes this means that "there is room for independent action in order for creatures to be themselves and "make themselves" in evolution, which therefore makes room for suffering and death.<ref name="PolkinghornetoTracy"/>{{rp|318–319}}

{{blockquote|A world in which creatures 'make themselves' can be held to be a greater good than a ready-made world would have been, but it has an inescapable cost. Evolutionary processes will not only yield great fruitfulness, but they will also necessarily involve ragged edges and blind alleys. Genetic mutation will not only produce new forms of life, but it will also result in malignancy. One cannot have the one without the other. The existence of cancer is an anguishing fact about creation but it is not gratuitous, something that a Creator who was a bit more competent or a bit less callous could easily have avoided. It is part of the shadow side of creative process... The more science helps us to understand the processes of the world, the more we see that the good and the bad are inextricably intertwined... It is all a package deal.<ref name="PolkinghornetoTracy"/>{{rp|318}}}}