Animal Death Before the Fall? Results of the Fall?

[Josh]

Originally posted 3/30/06:

If you are a Christian, whether you define yourself as a theistic evolutionist, a progressive creationist, or a young earth creationist (or anything inbetween), you've got to admit, nature, as it is, presents the human mind with some interesting conundrums.

Survival of the fittest and carnivorous activity, for instance, work quite well in maintaining and maximizing the quality of life on planet earth. But what do they say about God?

Most young earth creationists (actually all that I'm aware of) assign animal death and carnivorous activity to the Fall of man; that before Adam and Eve's sin, animals did not die and certainly didn't eat each other.

But they seem to be at a loss to explain this from Scripture. What exactly would a lion be if it wasn't a carnivore? What would a mosquitoe be if it didn't suck blood, and thereby cause pain? For that matter, what would a mosquitoe be if it lived forever? To maintain that animals were immortal (like the original humans) seems non-sensical. For them to have been immortal and non-carnivorous would require them to be so different than what they are, that the change from that to what we have today would be almost as big a change as creating completely new species from scratch! And Scripture doesn't tell us that animals underwent a massive change-- which seems surprising if it happened. Not only would the animals have to fundamentally change after the Fall-- the whole structure of the universe would have had to have changed as well, with the laws of entropy/ decay kicking in only then, which introduces innumerable scientific difficulties (not to mention that the Genesis text itself requires the laws of entropy before the fall, in that Adam is said to do work and woman is assumed to have faced some pain in childbirth-- which is increased after the fall). This is just the tip of the iceberg on this argumentation, by the way. If anyone is interested in pursuing this thought further, please post.

But I want to discuss how the belief that there WAS death before the Fall affects our conception of God.

If there was animal death before the creation of Adam and Eve, for millions of years, and yet that creation was called, "good" by God, the logical conclusion is that, contrary to sentiment, animal death and predation are a part of God's "good" creation. He designed those systems, they are "how the creation was meant to be". If one studies the results of predation, animal death, and decay one finds how beneficial they are indeed for the existence and quality of animal life-- and for the survival of the human race. I'll post a link or two on this at the bottom.

But what we might be missing (and perhaps what we're sensing when we reaction negatively to animal death) is that although the creation is "good" and accomplishes God's desired ends, He also has another future Creation in store, one that we might call "perfect", or "good" for God's new and eventual desired ends. This would mean that we can't say that animal death is an absolute Evil, but we can say that God will one day replace this system with another in which the "perfect" has arrived. C.S. Lewis gets at this much better than I am:

"We ask how the Nature created by a good God comes to be in this [depraved] condition? By which question we may mean either how she comes to be imperfect-- to leave 'room for improvement' as the schoolmasters say in their reports-- or else, how she comes to be positively depraved. If we ask the question in the first sense, the Christian answer (I think) is that god, from the first, created her such as to reach her perfection by a process in time. He made an Earth at first 'without form and void' and brought it by degrees to its perfection. In this, as elsewhere, we see the familiar pattern-- descent from God to the formless Earth and reascent from the formless to the finished. In that sense a certain degree of 'evolutionism' or 'developmentalism' is inherent in Christianity" CS Lewis, from Miracles

This resonates quite strongly with me-- especially after watching the "March of the Penguins". It was a heartbreaking movie from a human perspective- all the trials and ordeals of the penguins, but I can't say that penguin death is Evil. It's sad and unfortunate, but not absolute Evil. It is still a good creation, but it is moving to a perfect creation, when the groanings of this present one will be satisfied.

Still, there are outstanding issues and questions. For instance, what are we to say about some insects/ animals/ parasites that seem so 'messed up', in the absence of a better term: I mean, preying mantis' eating the heads of their mates, bot-flies laying eggs in animals and people's wounds, parasites eating another organism from the inside-out. What do these creatures say about their Creator? Do the theistic evolutionists have the upper hand here by not attributing these species directly to God by saying they are a random result of God's created laws (evolution). Or is this just a way to smokescreen God's responsibility for these odd creatures? Or do we just think these kind of organisms are fiendish, when in reality they aren't?

Always new ideas to chew on (ideas being far preferred to one's preying mantis mate's head).

Related links from Reasons to Believe:

Creature Mortality-
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml

What does the Bible say about Animal Death before the Fall?-
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml

Animal Death Beneficial-
www.reasons.org/resources/connections/2003v5n3-4/index.shtml#animal_death_prevents_ecological_meltdown

Why Would God Create Parasites?-
www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200504_connections_q2/index.shtml#why_would_a_good_god_create_parasites

[hume]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

"what are we to say about some insects/ animals/ parasites that seem so 'messed up' ... Do the theistic evolutionists have the upper hand here by not attributing these species directly to God by saying they are a random result of God's created laws (evolution). Or is this just a way to smokescreen God's responsibility for these odd creatures?"


Theistic evolution (TE) *does* attribute all species "directly to God" -- it places full responsibility for all of creation in his corner. The difference is that TE doesn't hold that the natural system (which was itself God's invention) is inadequate to the task of producing species. The mechanism God used to produce the profusion of species and ecologies is evolution -- but it's still God who "dreamed up" that mechanism and created all the material and energy that drives it.

A Christian TE-ist would also affirm the classic doctrine that nothing exists or continues to exist without God's "say so" (the idea of a sustaining cause behind all being). And most supporters of TE would agree that, from the outset, God has full foreknowledge of how everything will eventually turn out; thus if parasitism were unacceptable to him, he would never have let the project go forward in the first place, knowing that it would eventually lead to this. So parasites are problematic for TE in pretty much the same way that they're problematic for other theistic viewpoints: whatever the process he used to bring it about, God caused and allowed these creatures to exist.

[Josh]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

I guess I was really describing more of a deist understanding of the relationship between a Creator and the unfolding of the evolutionary process.

[hume]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

"do we just think these kind of organisms are fiendish, when in reality they aren't?"


You're onto something here. If a human behaved in a way that could be described like the behavior of a preying mantis or blowfly, we'd be right to characterize that as utterly bizarre and depraved. However, it's an anthropomorphism to accuse insects of moral wrong-doing. They just aren't moral agents. They aren't even innocent -- they are incapable of either innocence or guilt; they have no awareness of the consequences of their actions; they can't *intend* harm or good or anything at all.

In the many cases (like the mantis) in which the target of the parasite is another insect (or similar "lower life form"), it helps to remind oneself that these victims really do not suffer in any significant sense. They don't have anything like a mammalian brain; they lack self-consciousness; and their nervous systems are too primitive to enable the experience we call pain. They aren't miserable, or worried, and their "family" isn't waiting at home wondering what happened to them. It's really pretty accurate to think of them as tiny, extremely sophisticated robots.

There's still something unsettling for us as observers of such events. I suppose one could accuse God of poor taste in allowing this sort of thing -- although, on the other hand, the way in which parasites fit into the grand sweep of our ecosystem makes even their activity sort of amazing (even wonderful? or "terrible" in the old sense of that word?) if you stand back far enough.

The blow fly and its like are a different case, since they target humans. We can't accuse the fly of bad behavior, but we certainly suffer from their existence, so we may feel we have a gripe against Whoever it was that brought about these critters.

[hume]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

"The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God."
- Ps. 104:21

Predators seem less problematic than parasites. I think most folks, aside from zebras and gazelles, will agree that there's something magnificent about a lion (Psalm 104:21-24). A universe with no death would be a universe with no killers; but a universe with no lions doesn't sound very impressive to me. Is a safe, harmless world really such an ideal place? Wouldn't it be somehow unsatisfying, even boring? The thrill of danger can't be achieved without real risk of harm. Even when artists arouse such emotions without endangering us, they rely on our memory of real dangers. In a safe world, the audience wouldn't understand, let alone enjoy, "Indiana Jones," because they would have no personal experiences that would allow them to relate to the action.

But there's more to it than that. Danger isn't just a trade-off, an evil we have to put up with because it makes possible certain goods. It's a reminder that *we* did not create this place; we are not in control of it; on our own, we are not safe here.


"The earth is full of your creatures ... all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.

When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.

When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust ...

May the LORD rejoice in his works --
he who looks at the earth, and it trembles,
who touches the mountains, and they smoke."
- Ps. 104:24-32


(God speaking to Job):
"Who then is able to stand against me?
Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me."
- Job 41:11

No summary of the final chapters of Job can do them justice; but I don't see how one can read these passages and continue to believe that the world before Eden was a quiet, gentle place -- would Job's God would have any interest in creating such a world? Job 39-41 is nothing if not a hymn to all that we find terrifying, magnificent, dangerous, overwhelming and inexplicable in the world around us. Beside this, how pathetic appears our notion of what the universe "should" be like: we wish for a weak, tame world that won't intimidate or threaten or confound us. We'd prefer a small, friendly, domesticated god, capable only of creating a world that's smaller than we are.

After God's stunning pronouncements, what can Job say? "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know ... therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."

[Josh]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

Hume- when you earlier expressed interest in the discussing theodicy, you were talking specifically about how theories of evolution/ creation apply to forming a theodicy or were you just saying you were interested in the subject of theodicy in general?

[hume]

Originally posted 4/3/06:

The subject in general ... the "problem of evil" has been troubling to me for many years. (To draw your current Pentateuch study into this, I've been struck by the Old Testament's direct and unflinching treatment of suffering. If nothing else, one certainly can't accuse the Judeo-Christian tradition of avoiding the tough issues ...)

[Josh]

Originally posted 8/3/06:

I was thinking about the intriguing fact we glean from Genesis 3:22 (see also 2:9), namely, that Adam and Eve don't appear to have been created intrinsically immortal. Apparently, their 'protection' from death came from a source outside themselves- God's provision in the Tree of Life.

This means that upon the Fall of Man, nothing changed in their biology. The real change was their environment. Separation from the Tree of Life would kill them.

This thinking can be extended to support the idea that there was indeed death before the Fall. If mankind was not created immortal, but had to rely on a special provision, it seems much more likely that the same was true of all the other animals, for whom there was no special "garden of eden" provision.

This insight might also fit better with God using 'common ancestry' with animals in his creation of man, over and against creation completely from scratch.

[sonlyte]

The tree of life in fact seems to be a logical argument for death before the fall, in that it seems unlikely that God would have given immortaliy to all animals but not to his own image, and then offered the tree to that image to even the score. I have also begun to wonder about the value of animal life.
I have a vegetarian friend who has a serious problem with killing animals, but his problem in our discussions is rooted in the value which he arbitrarily places on animal life. It seems that we tend to see ourselves as intrinsically valuable and thus we naturally conclude that animals, in as much as they are like us, have value. We tend to have less of a problem with death as the form of life differs more from us. But where, I ask, did we get a sense of our own value? Why do we think that we are valuable? It seems that this instinct is designed into us. I would argue that God's opinion is the deciding factor. HE determined that we were valuable. I would ask those trying to preserve no death before the fall, what about an elephant walking along on his merry way, and accidentally crushing a round worm. God would have to be miraculously intervening constantly to avoid these kinds of mistakes. How would Adam have worked the ground with all of the insects that lie within being so rudely and in some cases fatally disturbed? I haven't been able to fully resolve the words of Genesis with what seems to be the logical reality, but I have a feeling it has to do with my own misunderstanding of what was attempting to be conveyed. Just some thoughts.

[Douglas]

It is funny that i have been rolling this though over in my mind for that last couple weeks. I had always taken the Genesis pronouncement that there was no death before the fall as the last word. But i had never really worked out the implications of that. No death would mean that everything would change. There really could be no birth either if that was the case. I hate to image the clouds of flys that would have over taken the earth in a matter of weeks if there were no spiders. Sorry Rick but even spiders have their place.

Also the point about the tree really stands out to me. Thank for the dialogue josh. what this really comes down to is a misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the Genesis account. I will have to do some real thinking about this one because it challenges my accepted mode of thinking on such a foundational level.

Years ago i ran across a song my Monthy Python that was a very sharp criticism of the traditional Christian stance. I believe it is a parody of a hymn. I have issue with some of it but here it is:

All Things Dull And Ugly

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

It is funny and yet a real challenge to much traditional Christian thinking. In order to be honest to our faith we must grapple with the truth that God created not only the beautiful but the ugly as well.

Douglas

[Josh]

It is funny and yet a real challenge to much traditional Christian thinking. In order to be honest to our faith we must grapple with the truth that God created not only the beautiful but the ugly as well.

Agreed. Very insightful on Monty's part.

There's a great book by Annie Dillard that really goes into this theme called a Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, btw. I also think Yancey discusses this somewhere too.

And to posit that any "negative" changes came about after the fall (such as inventing mosquitoes as some kind of curse, or creating fangs, etc..) would be in effect to argue that God did more creating after the 6th day, in direct contradiction of Scripture.

Sonlyte: I would add one thought to your discussion of the "value" of animal life. I definitely think we need to affrim the value of animal life, but if different ways than we value human life. Even if a mosquitoe was created by its very nature to be here one minute gone the next, it can still have value. It's just that we tend to think that the "value of life" = right to live forever. Apparently we didn't even have that right from the beginning. God had to provide the free gift of the tree of life to make that happen.

I am told that in the Hebrew the higher animals are referred to as "nephesh" or "soulish" creatures, whereas the lower animals are not spoken of as "soulish"? I think that implies a heirarchy of value in the animal world. Some animals share much in common with man: emotions, intelligence, etc.. God seems to have "breathed" some parts of himself into these animals (again, emotions, intelligence) that lower animals don't have- parts which we share with them, though he has "breathed" so much more into us.

[Josh]

On another thread:

Josh wrote:

Chris,
I for one am not a big fan of any view which holds that there were any biological changes due to the fall of humanity (not to mention changes in the laws of physics). I don't think the Scriptures you cited above are evidence of biological changes, but rather of situational changes for humans going from "protected status" to "out in the real world status", and, of course, this isn't even mentioning the scientific evidence which definitely would mitigate against that suggestion.

Chris responded:

I won't go to the mat over this particular issue. But I would say that intelligent Christians (oxymoron in the eyes of some ) disagree on this issue. I will also say that you need to do something with the verse I quoted about Eve's new found "pain" in childbirth, and the serpent going on his belly (I'm not sure how credible this is, but I seem to recall hearing about fossils being found of serpent-like creatures with a leg or two...that could've been made up so I'm not going to use it as an argument, only a suggestion for further exploration).

So, since this thread is already on the subject of what the Fall of Humanity did or did not change, I thought I'd address these issues here.

[Josh]

Here are the verses which deal with the "results of the Fall":

Gen 3:14-19

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel."
16 To the woman He said:
"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;In pain you shall bring forth children;Your desire shall be for your husband,And he shall rule over you."
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':
"Cursed is the ground for your sake;In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground,For out of it you were taken;For dust you are,And to dust you shall return." NKJV

Chris, you also mentioned this passage as well:


Rom 8:19-23

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
NKJV

[Josh]

I already responded to the Romans passage, so here's a copy of that:

Along these lines, I see the Romans passage as talking about something that occurred at the inception of creation itself, not at the fall of Adam and Eve.

If one equates the law of decay with the law of entropy, then there is good scriptural evidence to show that such a law was already in effect before Adam and Eve's disobedience: they worked the garden. Work is dependant on some kind of law of entropy.

On to Genesis 3:14-19:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel."

First off, a lot of the interpretation of this depends on whether God is here cursing the devil or snakes themselves. I see this as a curse upon Satan and only secondarily or metaphorically relating to snakes.

We aren't specifically told in this text that "snakes walked on legs" before the fall and that God subsequently took away their legs. In fact, there are snakes with legs to this day- they're called skinks, right?

It could be that God is just using snakes normal behavior to symbolize what has happened to satan because of his involvment in the fall. In fact, it's pretty obvious in the later part of the verse, and subsequent interpretation of this passage, that that is the case.

Or, even it is admitted that there was some kind of physical change here, it could be that just one species of skink was physically changed at this time (whatever species was being used by satan) I believe the scientific evidence probably puts the divergence of most snake-like reptiles from skink-like reptiles at a lot longer ago than the advent of modern humans. But I don't know for sure.

16 To the woman He said:
"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;In pain you shall bring forth children;Your desire shall be for your husband,And he shall rule over you."

Notice here, first off, that Eve's pains are increased implying, as I think was already discussed earlier in this thread, that there was (or at least would have been) some degree of human pain before the fall of humanity.

Why would the pain increase? Some might posit a biological change. I would simply say that in the garden God supernaturally protected and eased the existence of Adam and Eve, and in leaving the garden they were forfeiting that supernatural protection from pain.

Apparently the tree of Life in the garden was a source of such protection- perhaps this is a reference to some miraculous healing or protective agent. Just as the text seems to indicate that instead of biological changes contributing to Adam and Eve's mortality but rather that they were now mortal because they lost proximity to the tree of life, I'd argue that Eve's increased pains also have to do with being away from the Tree of Life, not because of biological changes.

17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':
"Cursed is the ground for your sake;In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground,For out of it you were taken;For dust you are,And to dust you shall return." NKJV

To this, I'd point out that God had earlier specially planted the garden of eden for Adam and Eve:

Genesis 2:8-9a

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

Here we have reference to the garden being, basically, a place more suitable for humans than the rest of the earth.

Even in this ideal garden Adam had to "work", so we have evidence that the laws of physics were still in place, nonelethless God had already prepared the place for cultivation. Because of the fall, however, Adam and all humans, forfeited the help of God in cultivation and the provision of the Tree of Life.

In other words, the curses upon humans have to do with the help and protection they have now forfeited, rather than biological changes.

[christopher]

Ok, I can see why you take it that way.

But I’m not sure I’d go so far as insisting that to “tend and keep” the garden equates to entropy or even what kind of “work” that is, the text doesn’t say. Nor do I necessarily think that entropy is necessarily to be equated with what Paul is saying in Romans 8. It might very well be, but there’s nothing in the text that necessitates it. There are, however, many places where God is said to have “cursed the ground” because of sin (Gen 3:17,4:12,5:29, Isa24:5, Jer 12:4). And there’s even a place where He promises never to do it again (Gen 8:21). This suggests to me some God ordained change in creation that was corruptive in nature. Also, the word in Romans that is translated “creation” can also be translated “creature” (as in KJV). Maybe this might suggest that the fall affected all other creatures, not just man. Could Paul be borrowing OT language?

Joel says:

Joel 1:18
18 How the animals groan!
NKJV

Demonstrating how judgment of a people is not limited to the people themselves.

(Note: this is not necessarily my stated view, but it is a plausible alternative)


You wrote:

First off, a lot of the interpretation of this depends on whether God is here cursing the devil or snakes themselves. I see this as a curse upon Satan and only secondarily or metaphorically relating to snakes.

If that’s true, then what do you make of the “seed” of the serpent mentioned here? Does Satan have offspring? How does that work?

I actually might tend to see it just the opposite as you do. Primarily a curse on the serpent (for allowing itself to be used by Satan as his agent to deceive Eve) and secondarily a veiled prophesy of Jesus conquering Satan at the cross.

Nice work on the skink though. That’s fascinating.


You wrote:

Notice here, first off, that Eve's pains are increased implying, as I think was already discussed earlier in this thread, that there was (or at least would have been) some degree of human pain before the fall of humanity.

Actually, I don’t notice that at all. Are you sure you’re on the right side of the semi-colon? What I see there is an increase of sorrows and conception followed by an introduction of pain in childbirth (a very different thing). I don't see an increase of pain, but a new element to child bearing altogether (namely...pain). On the other hand, Eve had probably not had any children at this point (since she was only a few hours old ).

Long story short: Your viewpoint has merit, but definitely not a slam dunk IMO.

[Josh]

for allowing itself to be used by Satan as his agent to deceive Eve

How exactly does an animal allow itself to be used?



Regarding the woman's pains, sorry, my bad, I was responding to the NIV, though I copied and pasted your previous NKJV.


16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

I didn't know they were so different.

Here's the amplifed for what it's worth:

16To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

I wonder what the NRSV says.

The NASB is similar to the NIV.

[christopher]

How exactly does an animal allow itself to be used?

What? When’s the last time you read Narnia? And I thought you were a fan of C.S. Lewis. ;D

The answer is...I don’t know. But how does a serpent speak to a woman? And more importantly, why does she carry on a conversation with it as if she isn’t surprised at all by this? I really don't know.

I know your just asking the question, but it sounds like it’s framed as a rhetorical question (i.e. it’s impossible for an animal to allow itself to be used). I think you may be falling into the same false induction trap most atheists fall into…if we don’t see the phenomenon happening now, it never could have. If so, you’re almost begging the question against your own world view by automatically dismissing the miraculous.

The truth is, we really don’t know what animals were like before the fall. Perhaps this is yet another example of post-curse biological changes. Or perhaps this is all to be taken metaphorically using a serpent to represent Satan. I honestly don’t know. I can only go by the text at this point.

By the way, I think C.S. Lewis actually did believe that some types of animals would be resurrected in the last day. Perhaps he drew support for that from the rendering of the Romans 8 passage I mentioned.

Regarding the woman's pains, sorry, my bad, I was responding to the NIV, though I copied and pasted your previous NKJV.

Ok, that’s fair. I guess it could go either way based on one’s preferred interpretation. What does the original text say? The word for sorrow in KJV and NKJV can be translated pain which would lend support to your position. But it could also just as likely be sorrow (don’t women tend to be more melancholy and emotional than men?. ..[ducking and covering his head] )