On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:39:43 -0700, Steven M. Smith wrote:
SS>...John Morris...attempts to answer the question "IF ALL ANIMALS
>WERE CREATED AS PLANT EATERS, WHY DO SOME HAVE SHARP TEETH?"
>He first affirms that all animals were original created as plant
>eaters
There is no Biblical necessity for this. True, Genesis 1:30 says:
"And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and
all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the
breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food" but this is
ambiguous. There is no statement that meat-eating was prohibited.
Kidner, in his commentary on this verse points out that it could
merely be a generalisation:
"The assigning of every green plant for food (RSV) to all creatures
must not be pressed to mean that all were once herbivorous, any more
than to mean that all plants were equally edible to all. It is a
generalization, that directly or indirectly all life depends on
vegetation, and the concern of the verse is to show that all are fed
from God's hand" (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and
Commentary", Tyndale Press: London UK, 1967, p52)
SS>and that it wasn't until after Adam's sin that things began
>to die. In his words:
Again, there is no Biblical evidence of this. The Bible says
quite clearly that only *human* death resulted from Adam's sin. God's
warning to Adam was:
"And the LORD God commanded THE MAN, `You are free to eat from any
tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it YOU will surely
die.' " (Gn 2:16-17. My emphasis).
"TO ADAM he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the
tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed
is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for
you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your
brow you will eat your food until YOU return to the ground, since
from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will
return." (Gn 3:17-19. My emphasis)
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN, because all
sinned" (Rom 5:12. My emphasis).
Note that if the "all" above does not mean only humans (as it
actually says) then animals must also have sinned! Indeed, if YECs
maintain that death of animals was included in the Fall, then to be
consistent they must maintain that animals share in the resurrection:
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1Cor
15:22).
In any event, asHugh Ross points out, even on the YEC 6 x 24
hour scenario, some plants and animals would die:
"The proponents of such a view fail to realize that the absence of
physical death would pose just as great a problem for three
twenty-four-hour days as it would for three billion years. Many
species of life cannot survive for even three hours without food, and
the mere ingestion of food by animals requires death of at least
plants or plant parts" (Ross H., "Creation and Time", 1994, p60)
SS>"How is it then, that so many animals seem fully designed to be
>meat-eaters? Some produce deadly poisons, others have armored
>plates as elaborate defense mechanisms. If animals were created to
>live in harmony, what was the purpose?"
There is no Biblical evidence that "animals were created to
live in harmony". Genesis 1 says that creation was "good" but it
still contained "wild animals" (Gn 1:24), and needed to be subdued
by man:
"...the mandate given to man in Genesis 1:28 which reads, 'Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion...over every living thing...charged man with `subduing' the
earth. The Hebrew word for 'subdue' is kabas, and in all its other
occurrences in Scripture (about twelve in all) it is used as a term
indicating strong action in the face of opposition, enmity or evil.
Thus, the land of Canaan was 'subdued' before Israel, though the
Canaanites had chariots of iron; (Josh 17:8; 18:1) weapons of war are
'subdued', so are iniquities. (Zech. 9:15 RV; Mic. 7:19). The
word is never used in a mild sense. It indicates, I believe, that
Adam was sent into a world where all was not sweetness and light for
in such a world what would there be to subdue? The animals, it
suggests, included some that were wild and ferocious, and Adam was
charged to exercise a genuinely civilizing role and to promote
harmony among them" (Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory
of Evolution", 1987, p53)
SS>John then discusses 4 (actually 5) scenarios that he feels are
>Biblically acceptable. I wonder how many on this list would agree?
>
>1a) "The first is that God, in His foreknowledge, knew that soon
>things would change, and so He created animals with features they
>would need in the new economy."
>
>[amateur theologian mode on] I've always have trouble with this type
>of argument. Does God knowingly set up someone to fail? Did Adam
>(and Eve) really have free will to choose or was he (were they) set
>up? [mode off] From a more practical side, this scenario suggests
>that God "foreknew" that it wouldn't take long for Adam to sin;
>otherwise some creatures were going to have a tough time in paradise
>getting proper nourishment. I sort of feel sorry for that
>rattlesnake who would be trying to subdue wild asparagas with his
>poisonous fangs ;-).]
Well out! On this basis the Fall would have been good for those
animals which were designed with it in mind. I once attended a
meeting where Garry Parker tried to argue that a crocodile's teeth
were designed for eating plants! My impression was that he didn't
believe it himself.
SS>1b) "Or it may be that these features had some other more benign
>function originally."
>
>Again that herbivorous rattlesnake comes to mind!
Sounds like Creation-Science's version of pre-adaptation! It sounds
just as implausible as when Darwinist's use it to get themselves out
of a tight spot.
SS>2) "The second option is that a great deal more potential for
>variation was placed in the original genome. At first the animals
>were designed to live a herbivores lifestyle, but adopted new
>habits in the more harsh world following the curse. Today,
>following many generations of variation, adaptation, and selection,
>animal groups have speciated so much that extensive variation is
>impossible."
>
>Wow! That is a more extreme version of evolution than the most ardent
>"evolutionist" would promote. Where does his microevolution stop and
>macroevolution begin? Granted, John hints that this type of evolution may
>be diminishing - since now "...extensive variation is impossible."
Yes. If YECs believe that only the basic kinds were on the Ark
and they have radiated out to all the genera, species and varieties
we have today in only 4,000 years, they must believe in a faster rate
of evolution than any evolutionist.
SS>3) "Or it may be that something more sinister was involved.
>Remember the overall scenario. Lucifer, [...snip...] may have set
>out to ruin God's beautiful creation.... Is it possible that this
>highly intelligent being performed breeding experiments, or genetic
>engineering on both mankind (Genesis 6:2-4 perhaps) and the
>animals, in his attempt to mock the true Creator/God and usurp His
>authority? Perhaps even the ancient legends of composite mixtures
>of beasts and half men/half beast have some basis in fact."
>
>This is my favorite! Its the devil's fault! This argument sounds a lot
>like the one used to explain away fossils as creations of the devil.
While I believe the devil is real, and can within limits cause
physical harm to man (Job 1:12), there is no Biblical warrant for
this eisegesis. This is my fundamental problem with Flood geology -
it requires so much adding to Scripture.
SS>4) "...[I]n His infinite wisdom, God completely changed creation,
>with all things dying and some animals quite vicious, from then on
>giving eloquent testimony to the awful consequences of sin. From
>then on, whenever Adam saw one of the animals kill another, he
>would have experienced remorse for what he had brought on
>creation."
>
>This is J. Morris' preferred scenario. Yet I really have trouble
>with it: God creates evil in the world as a judgement for man's
>sin. A child dying from the ebola virus is to remind me of my
>inherited guilt. I guess I have trouble reconciling this picture of
>God with the one I see at Easter.
Yes. The distinction between a God whose goodness is shown by not
even allowing the death of a fly before the Fall of Adam, to one who
then allows wholesale death of animals after the Fall of Adam,
escapes me.
While I believe that the consequences of Adam's fall has brought much
misery upon both humans and animals, I do not believe that the
suffering and death of animals was caused by it. Psalm 104 teaches
that the lion eating its prey is part of the wisdom of God:
"The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from
God...O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made
them all..." (Ps 104:21, 24).
Thanks for posting this.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------