The notion of dsyfunction is related to the ideas of design or purpose.
Or it's simply a matter of definition.
A dead organism killed by some mutation is part of the same evolutionary process as a living organism across the street that was not killed by the mutation. Both can be said to function 'normally' in the random, impersonal evolutionary scheme.
I'm rather curious about this notion that a dead organism is "functioning". ;)
Be that as it may, death is the inevitable result of life, for Christian and non-Christian alike. The wicked person who lives a long happy life and the moral person who steps in front of a bus and dies instantly can both be said to be functioning "normally" in the non-random, personal, theistic scheme. God's will, right?
As far as I can tell, the only 'purpose' of evolution is total extinction.
As far as I can tell, there's no purpose at all.
Aw shucks. I guess mine were, too. (Man, I hope we don't have to go another 600 replies.)
I'm rather curious about this notion that a dead organism is "functioning". ;)
Let's say the corpse of the organism is decomposing in the soil across the street over there providing nutrients in the soil. Is that not a 'function'?
The wicked person who lives a long happy life and the moral person who steps in front of a bus and dies instantly can both be said to be functioning "normally" in the non-random, personal, theistic scheme. God's will, right?
Yes. The concepts of "normal funtioning" and dysfunction in your example only make sense in terms of a personal, theistic scheme. In the atheistic scheme it is not even coherent to describe a person as wicked, much less view the problem of evil as a problem, or to see it as a problem that the moral person gets hit by a bus. The problem of evil is only a problem to theists.
As far as I can tell, there's no purpose at all.
I've said exactly that on the supposition that evolution were true, but ask Jedi Girl.
Cordially,