Response to Jim Pruitt's Comment (Last Post)

          The author probably accepts the evolutionary perspective, but most characteristics of creatures that could be demonstrating survival of the fittest could also be taken as good design repeated in multiple creatures when appropriate. Similar functions in different species can be seen as nothing more than careful design for function; when a similar function is desired in different species, a similar design is called for.
          We can hypothesize that females carrying babies or caring for babies should be designed so that they are more cautious. This could result in design goals for females to have smaller ranges, stronger desire to be close to the babies, more care in the kind of rough-housing when pregnant and around the babies, stronger attachment to the babies and to the group. If we want to design the group or pair so that the combination has the greatest survival probability, the male might be designed for less caution when seeking food, less fear when faced with danger etc. In general, it would seem to be a good design if the females were more protective and nurturing (since in mammals, they carry the babies) and the males less careful about their personal safety. Body chemistry would be a good way to address these design characteristics in a biological machine. A brain that responded positively to adrenaline might be a good way to get a male to disregard danger to protect. Sin might make that good design characteristic bad if the subject decided to selfishly try to repeat the adrenaline rush for no good purpose.
          Now, about how faith fits into this, it appears to me that God requires us to act on our faith. Faith that God will care for my loved ones (or my neighbor) doesn’t release me from the responsibility to protect and provide. If God is a good designer, he will have given me the requisite skill requirements. I don’t think I can separate natural from divine given that the divine is the designer of the natural and that the end game is to transfer / transport something of the natural into the supernatural after the natural death transition.
          I think of the ‘lion laying down with the lamb’ thing as something very separate from the current state of affairs. It appears to me that people were vegetarians and that prior to the fall, the animal kingdom was also vegetarian implying that the ‘lion and lamb’ coexisted prior to the fall and will again after Christ removes the curse after the end of the world. Examples of the possibility are clear in nature – such as the Panda Bear with carnivore teeth and bamboo for food or omnivores in general and quite a lot of dog food is cereal.
         This is hardly scientific, but I don’t think we need to try to prove that the world was different before the fall because the scientific rules had to change at the point of the curse. For instance, entropy – the second law of thermodynamics – probably wasn’t in effect then or after time ends. If that were the case, science couldn’t even speculate because scientific method has to assume the scientific rules don’t change to even begin and investigation. I think I’m a little off the subject, but it’s fun to speculate about.
          Thoughts?