Animal Death Before the Fall? Results of the Fall?

[Josh]

The truth is, we really don’t know what animals were like before the fall.

A big part of the disagreement we're having here has to do with your fundamental distrust of the fossil record and my general trust of it. You see, I would say we do know some things about what animals were like before the fall.

And we don't have any evidence of serpent-like creatures demonstrating abilities on a par with humans or even higher mammals. And, so far, we have no evidence of massive changes occurring in animals at the same geological time as the appearance of modern humans (definitely not anything like species suddenly going from herbivores to carnivores overnight). And the odds look slimmer and slimmer everday the more we know about the development of life on planet earth.

Also, just a side-note, snakes, being cold-blooded, are some of the least likely candidates for having any kind of volitional will.

Based on the information we do have, instead of appealing to novel scenarios, I think it makes a lot more sense to say that either 1) the snake was possessed by satan (as we see an example of this in the New Testament where animals are said to be able to be possessed by demons) or 2) that satan somehow took on the guise of a snake (the New Testament seems to hint that satan might be able to do things like that), or 3) that the passage is highly figurative.

If we're going to invoke Lewis here, we might add that from all appearances he took option 3, seeing the OT as beginning largely in the realm of pure myth and progressively entering into the realm of real time and place history.

[Josh]

There's an interesting article in the current Christian Research Journal by William Dembski (of intelligent design fame). It answers the question of animal death before the fall in a novel way*.

For the full argument, anyone interested will have to read his book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. But the gist is this:

Just as the result of Christ's death saves those both chronologically before and after his life on earth, so the effects of Adam's fall were felt (animal death, decay, entropy?) even before the sin was committed in history.

What I like about the theory is that, unlike Hugh Ross's attempts to explain animal death and suffering as not evil, but just "less than perfect", this view sees animal death as an evil- blameable on humanity. That was the hardest part of young-earth creationism for me to let go.

Thoughts? Questions?







*actually, though, apparently it was first brought up in the 1850s when geologists were concluding the earth must be old even before the advent of Darwin.

[Josh]

One potential problem I can see with the theory would be something along these lines:

If the effects of the fall were already apparent when the first life was created, billions of years before Adam and Eve, then why would Satan bother tempting Adam and Eve? His goal was already accomplished.

[Josh]

I suppose this would be the rejoinder:

Satan saw his victory at hand throughout the world (with the death and suffering of God's good creation), but the pinnalce of God's creation- mankind was still safe in the garden. So that would give him both the motivation and the confidence to tempt Adam and Eve into surrendering their security.

[robin]

This seems like a very unnecessary loophole. I believe that the death that came into the world was human death, and not animals. beyond a willingness to say just about anything to make the bible agree with science, I see no reason to give any credence to the notion that animals were dieing for sins not yet committed. Where is the justice in that?

[Josh]

beyond a willingness to say just about anything to make the bible agree with science

It's not so much that, it's more a theodicy for why animals die.

Is animal death, in your opinion, not an evil?

[robin]

Is animal death, in your opinion, not an evil?

I don't see anything evil about natural animal death. And by natural I would include death by other animals including humans.

[Josh]

Aug 2, 2011 13:18:11 GMT -8 robin said:

Is animal death, in your opinion, not an evil?

I don't see anything evil about natural animal death. And by natural I would include death by other animals including humans.

I find it hard to believe coming from the guy who cried at Marley and Me.

[Josh]

I see no reason to give any credence to the notion that animals were dieing for sins not yet committed. Where is the justice in that?

I just finished reading Dembski's whole book, which is now in the Aletheia library. I thought it had good merit.

I think he'd answer this by asking another question: where's the justice in God creating animals to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on other creatures, and to experience the waste and suffering of the cycle of nature?

He makes a great argument that suffering and decay, disease, and carnivorous activity cannot be part of God's "perfect" creation, but rather were anticipatory of human sin, which God in his foreknowledge knew was coming. God created carnivorous animals to mitigate against mankind's sin, but also in response to it.

Dembski argues that the reason God had to create a "garden" to place the first humans in was because the world was wild and already feeling the effects of the Fall and therefore wasn't a good testing ground for what man would do if given a free choice to reject God. God had to create a "perfect" place for the very real free will decision of Adam and Eve.

Needless to say Dembski targets "process theology" and open theism in many instances in this book as hugely problematic and ineffectual theodices.

In the book, Dembski also offers an alternative view on Genesis 1-3, citing problems with all four current popular views (young earth, day-age/ progressive, framework, and theistic evolution).

In addition, he touches on the question of pre-human ancestors and the first human population, which, of course have been hot topics as of late.

[asaph]

"A big part of the disagreement we're having here has to do with your fundamental distrust of the fossil record and my general trust of it. You see, I would say we do know some things about what animals were like before the fall." Josh

I happen to trust the fossil record and believe it is testament to the destruction and sediment placements due to the flood. I distrust "science" which claims age due to testing processes which make assumptions, and also state widely varying results on the same objects. I believe the fossil record supports the Genesis record. I do not believe anything existed for more than five days before Adam's creation, as far as Earth is concerned. Therefore I cannot believe death existed before Adam's fall.

Serpents flew.

Isa 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Isa 30:6 The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.

All over planet Earth cultures depicted flying serpents. There's even a winged serpent in Vatican crest. Flying serpents existed. The curse changed their beauty and grandeur and obvious fascination with stories and legends which would have descended from things Adam shared after expulsion from the garden.

The idea that life existed on Earth for millions of years is something yet to be proven by any branch of science. The fossil record and living 'fossils' deny it. Multiplying evidence of humans living with dinosaurs denies it. Soft tissue discoveries in dinosaurs denies it. Endless complexity existing in synergy denies it.

While I do not believe Scripture explicitly states the entire universe was created six thousand years ago ( biblical implications to the contrary), I certainly believe the testimony of Genesis and Christ, as well as empirical science, that the Earth is young. The solar system is young.

The lion did change, and obviously will change again, as so will wolves, and all creatures, including humans. Nothing will hurt in God's Holy Mountain. If nothing will hurt in the future why must I believe hurt was caused in some distant past, created by the minds of men, when the testimony of Scripture states it otherwise? Why do professed believers feel the need to jive with science that is not testable or repeatable, and stands against the plain testimony of the Creator? Is not the plan of creation Eden lost to Eden restored?

There is ZERO empirical evidence for cosmic evolution, and ZERO empirical evidence for biological macro evolution. There is ZERO evidence that any life can come from non-life, let alone complex life from nothing. Both systems and models are beliefs and matters of faith, not empirical science.

Those who believe God used macro evolution over billions of years have what actual, empirical evidence for this? The fossil record? But, the fossil record shows fast, catastrophic death across the planet. A fish then is the fish now. A turtle then is the turtle now. A bee then is the bee now. The dragonfly then is the dragonfly now. The only differences are size, generally. We do not see three foot wing spans on dragonflies now.

I believe sooner than later a living dinosaur will be discovered in some remote area of South America or somewhere where stories persist today of men seeing them. That includes flying dinosaurs that aboriginals and primitives claim to see.

God will yet declare His truth through His book of nature, for all the world to see, and make their final decisions upon.

[asaph]

BTW, a mosquito would be a pollinator pre-fall. It would, like male mosquitoes now, derive protein from fruit.

I believe the same kind of answers can be found for all "conundrums" in the natural world.

We must not rule out the working of Lucifer in all this. Man experiments. Can we think and believe Satan does not do the same? Where? How? We know not. We only know he cannot create but can certainly pervert. His perversions are designed to malign the character of God by defacing His image in man and all nature. His knowledge would be how much fold greater than any and all humans who have ever lived? He understands things man can only dream of at present. What kind of understanding of genetics does he have? What can he, has he, tinkered with? Legions of angels to do his bidding. Tampering with life on Earth in any and every conceivable way the Creator allows. Shall he not masquerade as an angel of light? Shall he not personate Christ to deceive the world at the close of time? Does he not involve himself with the paranormal now?

I find it fascinating, and alarming, really, believers pretty much leave the devil and his minions of out the equation in all this.

Satan is the father of lies. I happen to believe, on the weight of the evidence, that Darwinian evolution is one of his greatest lies.