In the Roman Catholic tradition in which I was raised, whenever Genesis was discussed it was pretty much assumed that God had stopped creating after he created Adam and Eve. On the other hahd, evolution hasn’t been as much of a battleground in Catholicism as it has been in other churches; the way I understood it is that Catholics are free to make up their own minds about it. So a Catholic answer might be that the initial creation was good but that after the Fall evolution started taking a twisted course, resulting in nasties like the guinea worm. I am just speculating here.

For a fundie/creationist/ID’er, that answer is not an option. If you use “After the Fall” for an answer then you open yourself wide open to the charge of promoting a particular religion in a public school. And Genesis clearly states that when God finished his creation he said that it was good. All of it. And yet there are things out there that very few people in their right minds would say are good. Look at all the effort spent in eradicating smallpox.

Frankly, I don’t think the creationist/ID folks have thought it through. If they get their way in teaching Genesis as science they are opening themselves wide up for questions like “what about the guinea worm?” We’ve all heard stories about the smart-aleck kid in Sunday school who asks questions the teacher can’t answer–heck, some of us were that kid ourselves–do the creationist/ID people really want to be exposed to that the rest of the week?

The Mormons (when you really dig into what they believe) do believe in a “council of gods” from which Jehovah came. So there is one group that does believe in possible multiple designers. In fact, Joshua’s article above sounds a bit like it could have been written by Joseph Smith (Mormonism’s founder).

Or maybe the worm was made to bring about “justice”, Christians love to throw that around, “bad things happen to bad people”.

Gosh, that’s easy. We’re in a fallen world. Adam and Eve are from some tree they weren’t supposed to, so now everything’s screwed up.

This probably also explains why the loving designer (who is perfect BTW) made us so poorly. Prone to multiple breakdowns; lots of inefficient systems; etc.

May you be Touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.

Yes, Ehrman is correct in that the majority of early Christians were, purportedly, poorer and uneducated. Robert Wrights’ book tells of the logistics of where these early Christians met and Paul’s attempt to administrate these home meetings. The only places homes large enough to house these early Christians would have been the traveling merchants.

In the book of Acts “a certain woman named Lydia” would be a case in point. She was a wealthy merchant; purple cloth was an expensive fabric (made with rare dye). Hers was, according to Acts, one of first house churches. Aquila and Priscilla are another example of wealthy a merchants’ home where Paul set up his franchising.

I’ll check out that book. Thanks.

Though I am confused, you say your book says Pauls “religion”
was for the wealthy merchants- according to Bart Ehrman the first Christians were of a poorer uneducated class? I will check out your book- sounds equally interesting.

Fascinating, well researched, and thought provoking.