Replies

" Yes, I do disagree."

Then your feelings are completely at odds with the evidence from biology. The struggle for existence was noted in biology, by creationists, before Darwin ever published. This isn't a *materialist* world view. It's a fact (to anybody who observes nature).

"And is made as perfect as mortal things can be made, through a process of cooperation, not via struggle or conflict."

But it doesn't work that way. Remember, we are talking about the natural world. Organisms have come up with innumerable ways to devour other organisms. There are wasps that lay their eggs into caterpillars and other insects. When the eggs hatch, the young eat the host alive. There are far far more organisms that are born than reach maturity. Predators tear apart their prey, often leaving their victims screaming in pain. The list is almost endless of the struggles and conflict in the natural world. I am stunned to hear someone, who is apparently intelligent, say there is no conflict in nature. Absolutely stunned.

I am stunned to hear someone, who is apparently intelligent, say there is no conflict in nature. Absolutely stunned.

I didn't say there was no conflict in nature. All I meant to suggest is that man and human living is not wholly contained within the paradigm of conflict. For man, unlike other existents in nature, conflict is optional.

If you ascribe to the theory of human "unalienable rights" which are absolutely contingent on God-given human nature in support of human free will, then I don't know how you could arrive at a different conclusion. But if you have, I'd be deeply interested in hearing the details.