prologos: If you account for the NEEDLESS suffering in nature/creation, and presuppose a loving God, he must have abrogated his duties and given creative powers to maligning spirit co-creators. Why would he do that?
Pain isn't needless. It's a much necessary mechanism of survival, actually. And the dynamics of predator/prey are an accepted part of the natural life. For the lion to survive, he must kill the gazelle. I can accept that without resorting to blame God for the "cruelty" in the natural world. If an atheist doesn't accept a God, who will he blame for nature's "cruelty"? He won't. He simply accepts that is the way things evolved. Why, then, in a theistic evolution scenario, blame God for being a "moral monster" because there is suffering in nature? I don't get that double standard, it's intellectually dishonest.
You pose an interesting question: Has God abrogated creative duties to malign spirits? Is that the reason for suffering in creation? Could a loving God produce a natural world where suffering does exist, not only among animals, but also among the most sophisticated animal of all, man?
That God abrogated creative duties to other spiritual being(s) can be seen in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:2, 3, 10; Colossians 1:16. What those duties consisted of, we don't know, but apparently they had to do with life on earth.
I think that , if life came about mainly by means of evolutionary processes, and those evolutionary processes aren't driven by emotions and affections, but rather, by fortunate random genetic accidents that happen to cause improvements in a species, causing it to become more sophisticated and more adapted to its environment, then one should not be suprised that 'nature' is cold and deprived of altruistic emotions, being mostly driven by need.
Eden