Creating god.

Peter Causton's article ("Darwin's Ghost," October 6), although a good overview of the subject, suffers from inappropriate language and imagery that makes it very difficult to reconcile evolution, Christianity, and the problems of theodicy. The first problem has to do with the words "waste, violence, pain, and suffering." These terms describe reality as humans experience and understand it. The cycles of life and death in nature are only wasteful or violent because we call them that. Suffering is a particularly human emotion and capability; suffering is the self-awareness of pain and loss. Similarly, consolation is something that only thinking, self-aware, self-conscious human beings experience. The rabbit who is destroyed by the hawk doesn't suffer, nor does he need consolation.

Another problem has to do with Causton's projection of humanity's limited experience and knowledge of reality onto the language and imagery of God. The dominant imagery of an all-powerful God is based on Scriptures that were written two to three thousand years ago by men who lived in a patriarchal, hierarchical, and juridical world. The kenotic theologians have at least broadened our language about a humble God who creates but does not control. Elizabeth Johnson gives us a relational God in She Who Is. Teilhard de Chardin wrote of God as infusing and drawing all of humanity to a closer and ultimate relationship with Him. And John Haught talks about humanity co-creating our world alongside God.

These are better and broader ways to talk about God that make the theodicy issue something we can grapple with more successfully. But, in all humility, we have to understand that we do not understand who and what God truly is. We "create" God out of our knowledge and experience as human beings. Any shortcomings in God are our creations.

BOB BEEZAT

Aurora, Ill.