Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

I believe that the food-chain only pertains to animals, not plants.

Paul Copan is on facebook. If you have a question you could ask him there, and he will probably give you a link to something he has written. He’s good about that…..a very kind soul, indeed.

re 549: No, my answer only requires that the yes be plausible. Given that I subscribe to an old earth, and to the presence of fossils of carnivores of ancient date, my beliefs entail a belief in probable animal death prior to the fall. Of course God could have miraculously preserved the animals without requiring organisms to eat each other, but I view that as very unlikely, though also plausible given God’s omnipotence. I only need plausible answers (i.e., could be correct), not the correct ones from God’s point of view, in order to respond adequately to potential rebutting or undermining defeaters of the OE view.

re 550,

That topic was also discussed on this web site, under the post: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/01/nt-wright-on-god-and-evil/

John Goldingay comments:
“So then, is this food-chain state of affairs evil, or simply good but
less-than-optimal—as with, say, our not having been created with incorruptible
resurrection bodies? Perhaps Wright’s reflections on salvation history elsewhere furnish
some insight for us: “the Torah is given for a specific period of time, and is
then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but
because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished.”22
Could it be that as with the Torah, the levitical priesthood, and the sacrificial
system, we have something similar going on with creation?23 To rephrase,
mutatis mutandis: “the first creation—which includes the food chain—is
given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside in the new heavens
and earth—not because it is a bad thing that will be happily abolished (or
rather transformed) but because it is a good thing whose purpose will then
have been accomplished.” Scripture does assume a certain planned obsolescence
built into the first creation, whose purposes will be accomplished as it
gives way to the new heavens and new earth. Though “very good,” it is not
perfect, as can be said (again) regarding our being “fearfully and wonderfully
made”—even though we do not yet have resurrection bodies.
Would this “very good”—though not perfect—creation include a food
chain, a nature red in tooth and claw? Is human death—or is all death—the
“ultimate blasphemy” and “the great intruder”? Is animal suffering a real
problem of evil, or can it be categorized under a “very good,” but not fully
restored, creation? ”

re 551

It is obvious that Copan is referring to the modern food chain with carnivores at the top.

Regards,
#John

John, I asked this boolean question.

Do you believe that animals (reptiles, mammals, etc) suffered from diseases such as cancer, and were being killed and eaten prior to man’s sin?

Your answer is “yes is plausible” and “no is not plausible”.

Do I have this correct?

re 555: You have asked a conflated question. With respect to the first part of your question, as I have indicated, yes, it is plausible (and I believe more likely than not) that some organisms consumed other organisms prior to Adam’s sin (consumption is a more general and thus better descriptor of what went on). There are other possibilities open to OEs, but I personally think the other options less likely. (Please answer my question re changes from pre to post Adam’s sin in relation to organisms consuming other organisms).

With respect to the second part (re diseases), I have not yet written an answer.

My index is now up to post 300 and I provide it in its current state below. I’m open to suggestions for revisions.

VARIOUS THEORIES OF GENESIS AND CREATION
The seven days in Genesis are 24 hour days
Original CMP post, 45
Young Earth Creationism (a.k.a. Theory #1)
Explanation: Original CMP post
Std. Gap Theory Creationism (a.k.a. #2)
Explanation: Original CMP post
Gap Theory where Gen. 1:1 not refer to original creation
Explanation: 16 (B. Waltke theory)
Time Relative Creationism (a.k.a. #3)
Explanation: Original CMP post, 2, 80, 273
General critique: 19
Day age old Earth Creationism (a.k.a. #4)
Explanation: Original CMP post, 23?
Progressive creation views (e.g. Hugh Ross): 107,
Theistic Evolution (Adam is physical) (a.k.a. #5)
Explanation: Original CMP post
Theistic Evolution (Adam is not physical) (aka #6)
Explanation: Original CMP post
Literary interpretation of Genesis
Explanation: 3 (J.H. Walton view),
Days of Genesis are days of announcement or definition
Explanation: 21
Days of Genesis are specific creative days (not necessarily contiguous)
Explanation: 67
Days of Genesis are analogical days
Explanation: 63
Young earth that appears old (created “mature”)
31, 35, 39
General critique: 36, 37, 41, 47
It’s Turtles all the way down: 25, 27
Being dogmatic on theories of Genesis and creation
We can’t be: Original CMP post, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 20, 32, 39, 40, 44, 73, 77, 79, 91
We can be: 29, 52
Is YEC an available option?
Yes: 40
No: 84
How should we categorize various interpretations of Genesis
CMP’s original post, 24, 30, 130
FAITH ISSUES
Does the YEC view cause, or is it related to, faith issues and evangelism
Negative relationship: 78, 84, 105, 117, 134, 136, 147, 172, 282, 293
Neutral: 13
Postive relationship: 115, 125
Scoffers: 167
NOACHIAN FLOOD
Is nature of flood (global/local) necessarily related to age of earth?
No: 18, 228, 295
Yes: 273
Do we still have the same Mesopotamia and Israel?
31, 46, 51, 68
Was the flood local or global?
Local: 68, 157, 187, 189, 195, 196
Global: 192, 194, 204, 257
General discussion: 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 229
Geneologies (see this heading below)

[continued]

@Dave Z, 513 — This is probably caused by using high-DPI fonts. In a computer with high resolution screen, you can set the display properties to “use large fonts”, and this causes the fonts to be cut off (even though they look normal size on your screen, because the screen is high DPI).

It would be due to a bug in this site’s CSS, since people often do not test their CSS with high-DPI fonts.

Thanks to Joshua Allen. Still not sure what is causing it, but tonight it’s working, I can see the whole number. I think earlier my browser (IE8 on XP) went into “compatibility mode” and only showed partial numbers. Tonight I did not get that message and it’s working OK.

Mysteries of cyberspace.

Some of the posts got me thinking about this…Is evil an action or an intent? IOW, when one of our local cats becomes coyote food, is it evil? I say no, the coyote is just being a coyote. But if some neighborhood kid tortures and kills a cat, I’d would call that evil. Both involve pain and death on the part of the cat; it is the intent that makes the difference.

If evil is in the intent, is it even possible for animals, operating by instinct alone, to be or to commit evil? Was it the arrival of man that made evil possible?

On another note, the world contains many forms of life that live by scavenging. From buzzards to fly larvae to various aquatic animals, these creatures live by cleaning up dead tissue. They have a purpose. So…did they exist prior to the fall? If so, what was their purpose? Or did God create them after the fall? A second creation? Or did they go hungry until animals began to die after the fall? How does that fit in with “very good?”

And if we say that all animals were vegan before the fall, as Gen 1:30 seems to say, what about specialization? Today, predators have bodies built for the chase. Teeth made for catching and killing. Digestive systems optimized for a meat diet. Herbivores have teeth made for chewing plant material and so on. So pre-fall, were lions chasing down bushes? Trying to eat grass with fangs? Or did they have molars like ours, but God miraculously changed their teeth and bodies as needed? How did these changes happen? Was it instantaneous? Did these changes happen over time? A YEC viewpoint doesn’t seem to allow much time for these changes to take place. I think you’d be forced into saying that God instantaneously changed millions (just a guess) of species to a meat based diet? It really sounds like it requires a second creation.

Good-morning Dave Z! Interesting thoughts. I would definitely say that in order for some action to be evil there has to be sin present in the heart, which precipitates the deed. Therefore, animals are not capable of evil. When an animal kills another for food, it is responding to God’s plan for it’s survival, which of course is not anything like a human killing a human. Unless you are a cannibal…..;-)

Sin brought death for humans……maybe for animals too. Perhaps no animals died before the fall, and they all ate plants (?). I was just reading Paul Copan’s comments on that again (post # 550)……and then John’s post #554.

John, the index you’ve constructed is great! You should repost it when we reach #600 so that it will be easy to remember where it is!

Animals are indeed capable of evil, if you define that as killing for fun and not for survival.

A cat will catch mice and amuse itself by playing with them until they die, rather than finish them off quickly. Chimpanzees of one group will go to other territories to hunt other chimps and beat them to death. Many dogs are bred to kill for sport.

I suspect that there is a direct link between intelligence and killing for fun. Perhaps that link has evolved over time due to natural selection; animals that kill for fun may be more adaptable or simply smarter than those that don’t.

I don’t think an animal killing to amuse itself is sin, because I would say sin requires a higher level of cognitive ability, a certain awareness of self, but it’s not good and seemingly not required for survival.

Sorry to interrupt. Carry on, please.

I think you bring up an interesting point, Jjoe, because as someone mentioned above somewhere, we see don’t evil in the same way animals do, or apparently in the way God does.

I think cats playing with mice is cruel, as many people do, but to the cat it’s simply play. As you say there is no self awareness or cognitive recognition there of what is inherently good or evil, simply an instinct. All cats do it, so it isn’t a learned behavior either.

Does that make evil relative: i.e. as some define it: merely the absence of good, or lack of a code of ethics or morals?

Apparently God considers evil more than merely a lack of good to counter balance it, or a matter of personal belief, but it seems to constitute more the kind of complete disregard for Him, His Son, and His commands which gives birth to willful disobedience such as caused satan’s fall from heaven, then Adam and Eve causing the fall of man, and their son Cain taking another innocent person’s life (Abel). Then, of course the reason for the flood in the first place: to wipe out the evil man had done in God’s eyes.

I don’t know if sin and evil are two different things to God, or where or if He draws the line between one and the other, but the wages of sin is death, scripture says. So I would think they would probably have to intersect at some point, even if we don’t always understand exactly where that might be in God’s eyes.

So this topic has me considering things I’ve never really thought about, though I’m sure others have talked them to death. mbaker’s post above..

Then, of course the reason for the flood in the first place: to wipe out the evil man had done in God’s eyes

The flood was to wipe out man and his evil. So why kill all the animals? God could have worked it like the firstborn in Egypt…everyone but Noah and company just dies. Why the flood?

If nothing else, maybe we can glean that the simple death of animals is not evil. Otherwise God did evil in killing a bunch of (innocent, I assume) animals. If the death of animals is not inherently evil, then why not predation and disease before the fall?

Carnivorism and scripture. Consider Isaiah 11:6-9 and 65:17-25.

Below is from:
http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals

We are told that ‘the wolf will dwell with the lamb’ and ‘the lion will eat straw like the ox’, etc. ‘They will not hurt or destroy’ and ‘they shall do no evil or harm’.

…these passages indicate very specifically that carnivorous activity is an evil—that is, a physical rather than a moral evil. The Hebrew word translated ‘hurt’ in the KJV of Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 is raa. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the most frequent translation of this word is ‘do evil’. Other translations include ‘afflict’ and ‘do wickedly’. It is related to ra, the usual word for ‘evil’ in the Old Testament—and that includes both moral and physical evil. As for the word translated ‘destroy’ in the KJV in Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 (shachath), the core meaning is ‘mar’ or ‘corrupt’. No wonder carnivorous activity has no place in the new creation!

Motyer has spent a lifetime studying the book of Isaiah. He is not involved in the young-earth/old-earth controversy; rather he is concerned simply with expounding the plain meaning of the text. In his commentary on Isaiah, he teaches that Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:25 do indeed picture a return, in some sense, to the conditions which prevailed on Earth before God cursed the creation—and in doing so, he affirms the herbivorous nature of all animals before the Fall. Concerning 11:6–9, he writes:

‘There is an “Edenic” element in Isaiah’s thinking (see on [Isaiah] 2:4b) … the life of nature itself is transformed. Verses 6–8 offer three facets of the renewed creation and verse 9 is a concluding summary. First, in verse 6 there is the reconciliation of old hostilities, the allaying of old fears; predators (wolf, leopard, lion) and prey (lamb, goat, calf, yearling) are reconciled. So secure is this peace that a youngster can exercise the dominion originally given to humankind. Secondly, in verse 7 there is a change of nature within the beasts themselves: cow and bear eat the same food, as do lion and ox. There is also a change in the very order of things itself: the herbivoral nature of all the creatures points to Eden restored (Gn. 1:29–30). Thirdly, in verse 8 the curse is removed. The enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent is gone (Gn. 3:15ab). Infant and “weaned child” have nothing to fear from cobraand viper. Finally, in verse 9 the coming Eden is Mount Zion—a Zion which fills the whole earth. Peace (9a), holiness (9b), and ‘knowing the Lord’ (9c) pervades all.’4

(cont.)

[continued]Carnivorism and scripture

Isaiah 11:6–9 ends with the words, ‘They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.’ Summarizing this passage, Nigel Cameron writes:

‘Essentially it has two thrusts of teaching—it implies that there is, in fact, something fundamentally awry in the animal kingdom; that the predation and animosity which characterise it are not as they should be. And, secondly, it asserts that it is man’s religious condition that is responsible for this state of things; the absence from the earth of the “knowledge of the Lord”. Human sin and evil in nature are interconnected in a relation of cause and effect.

Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:17–25 do not mean necessarily that life in this restoration will be exactly the same as life in the pre-Fall world. It will be on a higher plane of existence, and it may well be that Isaiah is using images, which we can understand and relate to, in order to describe the indescribable. He is trying to describe a state of existence which is beyond our capacity to understand fully as yet. In this sense, Isaiah’s language may be metaphorical. He is using as metaphors, images which we can understand and relate to. If this is so, it actually confirms the reality and historicity of the herbivorous nature of all animals in the pre-Fall world. To Isaiah and his readers, this was real history, and he was taking it and using it as a picture of life on the new earth.

…

Regarding the extent of the curse:

F.F. Bruce (then Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at Manchester University). Like Alec Motyer, he was an evangelical theologian who was not involved in the young-earth/old-earth controversy. In his commentary on Romans, he was concerned simply with expounding the plain meaning of the text. I would like to quote him at length, but lack of space forbids. Concerning Romans 8:18–25, he has no doubt that this passage is indeed speaking of the Curse which fell on the whole creation—the entire universe—as a result of the Fall. He assumes that Isaiah 11:6–9 is in the language of poetry; but he makes it quite clear that Romans 8 looks forward to ‘the transformation of the present universe’ on the day of resurrection.

recommended read: http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals

Good posts, Richard! I think that ‘natural disasters’ are also a result of the fall.

OK, so how do we explain the completely different physiology between herbivores and carnivores? Did the fall require a new creation of radically different life forms to deal with the results of death or were the core biological systems of some herbivores (e.g. lions) instantly converted to handle a carnivorous diet? (Remember, this is after the sixth day and God is apparently done creating – he’s resting)

And what about the scavengers? Buzzards or vultures come to mind. Did God create a bird with an unfeathered head (perfect for digging into carrion) before there was any carrion? And did those birds go hungry before the fall?

How long was that? One solar day – day 6? Adam named all the animals in one solar day? Millions of species, evidently including dinosaurs, according to most YECs. At least Adam didn’t have to be afraid of the T Rex, as it was eating grass at the time.

So, let’s say the vultures went hungry for at least a day. Let’s talk about that day – the sixth day. YEC insists on a 24 hour day. That’s 1440 minutes, 86,400 seconds. Let’s say Adam didn’t get any sleep in that 24 hour period, so he was available to work for all 86,400 seconds. (But wait… he did sleep, when God took a rib.) So somewhere in that day, God creates all land animals. Let’s assume that happens during the first micro-second of the day, so Adam still has pretty much all of his 86,400 seconds available. Now sometime on that day, God has to create Eve. (Remember, by the end of the sixth day, creation is done and God is resting.) We’ll assume God creates her in the last micro-second of the day.

OK, so somewhere in between the creation of land animals and Eve, Adam has to name all the animals, including dinosaurs and other extinct fauna. Now, today, there are an estimated 1.4 million species on earth. Remember, that’s not counting all the extinct species, but even so, let’s drop that number a bit and say 1 million species, just to lighten Adam’s load. Now, Adam has 86,400 seconds to observe and name one million species… lemme see… that’s about 11.5 species a second? Now, I think highly of Adam, but is that expecting a bit much?

Any thought?

I personally believe that the text in Isaiah supports a future eschatology, not a past state of creation. Yes, the curse fell on all creation, but as Dave Z pointed out, why take it out on innocent animals who were may have already been already designed to keep themselves in check by the natural laws of God’s food chain? If we look at the verses in Genesis in which God tells man it’s okay to eat meat now, are we assuming that it wasn’t before, or that there a natural time lapse between the growth of new crops that would mean a new diet of meat in addition to vegetables, in order for man to survive on the earth until it could be replanted and harvested?

Notice the use of the the word “will” in Isaiah. Where does it indicate that there was a prior creation where the lion laid down with the lamb?

Dave,

You asked “any thought?”. Yes — you’ve been reading only OEs (probably Hugh Ross), and not the YEC answers to your questions.

If you really want to know the YEC answers to your questions (and answers have been provided for all of these, many times), check out the search engine at creation.com.

Here’s an example….how about an herbivorous lion:

http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat

here’s the beginning:

Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat. In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau, alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.

Another – easily answered:
http://creation.com/how-could-adam-have-named-all-the-animals-in-a-single-day

Richard,

An exception does not a rule make, instead only proves it, right?

Here’s where I can see the difference:

I agree with you that Isaiah certainly presents a better view of creation, because of Christ’s perfection, but not not because of Adam’s failure, because Isaiah does not speak of the past creation, but the future for God’s people, under the dominion of Christ, not man. Big difference.

Now I know there is some disagreement in the theological community as to whether animals will be saved, in the same sense that humans are. It seems to me if that were God’s original intention He would have never given man dominion over animals.

Now regarding the verses in Genesis, which refer to it being okay for man to eat meat. Was that, as I posit it, an addition to the diet of plants, which after the flood would have required some time to grow, and so furnished man with a different form of God’s provision? And was this also really the foreknowledge of God, knowing that because of evil forces interfering with His original plan for creation that we would have to eat the animals? And thus He had already provided for that.

This to me, at least, is a fascinating study and invokes all God’s foreknowledge of man’s choices, and His plan to have provision ready for those of his righteous ones, no matter what evil forces try to thwart that.

I have my doubts about taking a modern classification system (genus, species, etc.) and applying it to Adam’s situation. Sounds like tap-dancing around the issue to me.

And this (from the link you provided) sounds like evolution to me.

assuming that speciation has been an on-going occurrence since Creation, the eleven thousand vertebrate species in question would have most likely descended from a much smaller number of proto-species.

I can accept variation within a species, but it sounds as if that statement goes considerably further. For example, I can believe that a lynx and a bobcat can be variations on a theme, so to speak, but have a little trouble saying the same about a lion and a jaguar. Maybe the ability to interbreed comes into play. Tigers and lions can breed, but as I understand it, the resulting liger or tigon is almost always sterile, even though both species share a common genus. Mules are also generally sterile, even though both parents are in the same genus. There seems to be a barrier built in, so I have my doubts about new speciation in the wild.

And I have not read anything on the OE/YE controversy. I’m just posting what occurs to me.

Oh, by the way, in advance, I wish all of you fathers here a very happy day tomorrow. May you be very well appreciated, as you well deserve to be. Just as Christian men try very hard to follow in our Father’s footsteps, and often are not appreciated for all you do: As a parent, I do. Nothing takes more time, more energy, more commitment, more of all of what you are, and all of what you have to draw upon, deep down, as you are called upon in being a parent.

If no one else understands both the difficulty of that, and the joy of that, I’m sure God does. Hats off to all of you. You are invaluable in your influence upon your children’s lives.

God bless.

Scripture presents the idea that the future will involve a restoration of the creation. Notice how little sense any of this makes if the original state of creation included death and disease. It is hard to overstate the importance of recognizing what happened at the fall, and remembering that the world we live in now is not as it was originally. Rather, it is corrupted by man’s sin. See Rom 8.

Acts 3:18-21:
But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ[a] would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Many commentators see the clear reference to such restoration in Isaiah 11.

For example

a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation. Compare Genesis 2:19,20, with Psalms 8:6-8, which describes the restoration to man, in the person of “the Son of man,” of the lost dominion over the animal kingdom of which he had been designed to be the merciful viceregent under God, for the good of his animal subjects (Romans 8:19-22).

from http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=011

“Scripture presents the idea that the future will involve a restoration of the creation. Notice how little sense any of this makes if the original state of creation included death and disease. It is hard to overstate the importance of recognizing what happened at the fall, and remembering that the world we live in now is not as it was originally. Rather, it is corrupted by man’s sin. See Rom 8.”

Or does it, really represent that, when all is said is said and done? Or is it a literal interpretation of the Genesis scripture actually presenting a works salvation against a salvation represented by Christ’s ability alone to rise above the temptations of the first Adam? And, indeed our own modern interpretations to make creation and salvation all about us, and what we believe, in our finite mindset, rather than upon God’s thoughts beings higher than our thoughts and His ways being higher than ours?

Seems to me YEC demands that it be understood that way, and no other.

mbaker,

Please clarify exactly how you think a YEC understanding includes a work’s salvation. That is a serious charge to make.

Richard,

Here’s how I see it, and would venture a lot of of other folks do too:

It is all about Adam’s and Eve’s sin, and nothing about how God planned it.

While I’m not a Calvinist, I can see on the one hand YEC’s permit a literal reading of scripture, i.e. it was all about Adam and Eve and the fall of man and less about God, knowing this is the way things would go, and His merely reacting to that.

Please explain to me, and others here, who might have the same question, the difference.

MBaker, Father’s Day is on the 21st. You scared me! We are going to celebrate my daughter’s HS graduation tomorrow….not Father’s Day.

Susan,

Duh! Thanks for the heads up,. How about that for being a week early?

Congrats on your daughter’s graduation as well. Have a wonderful day celebrating.

God bless.

mbaker,

It sounds like you are concluding that the YEC understanding minimizes God’s foreknowledge. Not at all. In fact, the more we learn in genetics, the more it appears that an enormous capability to adapt was pre-programmed in and is activated when appropriate. This shows the Creators planning doesn’t it.

The YEC understanding simply takes what God has told us in scripture in the straightforward manner. That is all. The fact that this appears to create conflicts with the consensus view of “science” does not cause the YEC to then immediately conclude that we don’t “understand” what God meant (as has been posted many times by OEs in this blog). Rather the YEC, recognizing the limitations of science, and accepting the truth of scripture, then looks closely at these “scientific” conclusions and their methods.

So for the most recent example. It was implied that lions must have always been carnivores, and I simply pointed out that even today at least some lions do not eat meat. The fact is that a lion does not have to eat meat to survive. Thus the idea that “lions must have been created as carnivores” is proven false.

What was the reaction to this information. The comment “An exception does not a rule make, instead only proves it, right?” — which seems to miss the point entirely. No YEC is claiming that there are not many carnivores today. Again, YECs take seriously what happened at the fall and do not believe that things are the same today as pre-fall. OEs often seem to assume that very little changed, hence if lions are carnivores today they’ve always been carnivores.

So what happened here. A reasonable objection (carnivores) to the Genesis account (all animals created herbivores) is examined and the objection is shown to false, and not a reason to reinterpret what scripture clearly says. Does this mean we know all the details about today’s carnivores? Of course not. This is what happens if the objections are carefully examined — the straightforward reading of Genesis stands.

For those interested, the search engines at http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org provide hundreds of articles addressing these subjects, and answering the typical objections. There are many other sites as well, but these two are a great place to start.

Richard,

Thanks for the clarification.

As an OE, I can live with it either way. I just think that there’s much more evidence to support the debate for meat eating creatures having always existed.

I think if God was going to make a radical change in animals after the flood, i.e. turn them into carnivores at that point, there would be a great deal of scripture written on it, since animals on the ark represented all kinds. And certainly some of them would be eating one another immediately after the fall, if we are only going to make a case for the YEC in a literal reading of Genesis.

Certainly one would have expected that immediately after the flood God would have to make some provision for food for both Noah and all the animals because plant life had not been re-established yet.

mbaker,

I appreciate you comments. From your OE perspective I’m curious as to what you think this passage means:

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 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.” And it was so.

Richard,

There are two different things being said here in this scripture.

(1) God gave the seed bearing plants, and trees to man.

(2) God made plant life available to all animals.

Thus I do not find conclusive evidence here that plants were the only available food to the animals pre-fall, but I believe that is one interpretation.

And consider this:

Genesis 1:24:

And God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds- livestock and and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”

To quote my ESV Reformed Study Bible note on this scripture:

“The contrast between wild and domesticated animals differentiates carnivores from cattle. The Hebrew here for ‘beasts of the earth’ is the same as that in Job 5:22, Ps 79:2, Ezekial 29:5, 32:4, 34:28”

Dave Z Re: # 567 (perhaps 667 … I’ve lost track!)

You point out the difficulty of Adam naming 1 million species of animals in a 24-hour day. I looked up species on Wikipedia, which is obviously not biased in any way toward YEC. Here is their breakdown of species:

Total # of: about 1.6 million (m.)
plants: about 330,000
animals: appr. 1,250,000 Of these animals:
invertebrates (insects, mollusks, crustaceans, corals, etc.):
appr. 1,200,000
vertebrates: fish – 60,000

Richard and Dave Z,

Speaking of names, it is interesting that Adam used some descriptive names which showed there must have been meat eating animals already created.

A complete scriptural discussion of that, with references to Strong’s, and OE as compared to YEC biblically can be found here:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

Since the thread has gotten so long, I’m not sure if this link has already been posted somewhere here or not.

Dave Z Re: # 567 (667??)

PLEASE IGNORE # 583 … THIS REPLACES IT! (Idon’t know what happened with 583!)

You raised the problem of Adam naming about 1 million species in 24 hours. You calculated that he would have to name about 11.5 per second.

According to Wikipedia, which is hardly biased in favor of YEC, the total # of species in the world is about 1.6 million. Here is a breakdown of this total (#s rounded off):

Plants: 330,000
Animals: Invertebrates (insects, mollusks, crustaceans, corals, etc. … 1,200,000
Vertebrates: fish – 60,000
amphibians – 30,000
reptiles – 8,000
birds – 10,000
mammals – 5,500

Gen. 2:20 states very specifically exactly what Adam named: “And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field …”

Thus, out of all of the above referenced species, the ONLY ones that should reasonably be included in the group specified in Gen. 2:20 are the last 2 in the list – birds and mammals. Mammals are further restricted to “every beast of the field,” which is obviously a relatively small subset of all of the mammals.

Taking into account that the biblical term for these creatures is “kind” (baramin), not species, and that this term is considerably more inclusive than species (for example, it would include all dog species, including all breeds of domestic dogs plus wolves, foxes, jackals, etc. in a single “kind”) the total number of animals that Adam had to name may well have been no more than one to three thousand. In order to do this, in a period of about 20 hours he would only have to name about one animal every 20 – 60 seconds.
I am confident that Adam could have easily handled this task. After all, he was undoubtedly a LOT smarter than people living today!

Regarding the names Adam used, your reference says:

It is abundantly clear from the names given to the carnivores by Adam that he had seen these animals in action – eating other animals prior to the Fall of mankind. The idea that all animals ate only plants prior to the Fall is contradicted directly by the biblical texts.

Talk about reading INTO the biblical text. His conclusion is completely unfounded. First, scripture does not tell us what names Adam used – the later Hebrew names may or may not be the ones assigned by Adam. Second, suppose Adam gave what we call a lion the name “abcd”. Then after the fall when lions became carnivorous, their behavior is observed and that behavior becomes associated with the name “abcd”. This would account for any notion that “abcd” implies carnivorous behavior.

Take any OE reason given on that website and research it at the YEC sites I mentioned….

Richard, you said regarding this OE link:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

“Take any OE reason given on that website and research it at the YEC sites I mentioned….”

I have already done so, as is my habit to want to hear both sides of the story.

No, scripture does not tell us the names Adam used, except for general categories such as birds, fish, livestock, reptiles and wild beasts. But if we are to accept a YEC literal interpretation of Genesis as being correct, then we would have to believe that the original names Adam gave were correct in Hebrew also in order to hold to the YEC position.

I simply can’t see on the one hand taking the literal translation (Hebraic) and applying it to the YEC account on one hand and then saying the names of the animals might have changed later to reflect the new world outside the garden Adam found himself in. The Bible does not in any way infer that the animals were re-named at some other point in time.

So I would consider that theory much less plausible than even insisting animals were magically somehow changed into meat eaters after God had already called His creation complete in 6 days. If carnivores were a result of the fall, why put meat eaters on the ark in the first place? Couldn’t God have put an end to that if he considered carnivoirsm evil, by letting them die in the flood? I think God had a bigger purpose, as I’ve already stated, one to provide food for man after the earth was stripped of plant life, and to insure that carnivores would keep the earth from being stripped of its vegetation in the future by huge numbers of animals reproducing at a rate much faster than humans.

Then another thing there is to consider: Bears are both plant eating and meat eating. Animals who eat plants are eating the insects on them as well, and that would have had to occur pre-fall.

For those interested in a biblical analysis of the teachings of Hugh Ross (and thus Rich Deem), read the book “Creation and Time” by Van Bebber and Taylor
https://store.creation.com/nz/product_info.php?products_id=116&osCsid=3690ab5799623b6b23cb5babe5f0fac4

For a comprehensive review of both scientific and biblical issues, read
“Refuting Compromise” by Jonathan Sarfati
https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?sku=10-2-164

Dr Douglas Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology, writes:

‘This book is of pivotal importance for overcoming the present confusion on Genesis and science among many Christians who wish to expound faithfully and intelligibly the scriptural texts … with crystal clarity, Dr Sarfati works through the often convoluted arguments of those opposed to a plain reading of Genesis in both the scriptural and scientific arenas … some of the most convincing answers I have yet seen.’

Christians are called on to have be prepared to give reasons for what we believe, so it is our obligation to try to understand the rationale for what we think is true.

Re: God’s original design of carnivores, and when these animals began eating meat

YECs often claim that in God’s original creation ALL animals were herbivores (plant-eaters) and that they only became carnivores after the Fall – or perhaps even after the Flood. A glance at the teeth of a lion or a shark surely casts a shadow of doubt upon this position (BTW, I’m very familiar with the story of Little Tyke, the lion that refused to eat meat … I agree with a previous comment that she is the exception that proves the rule). Such creatures certainly don’t look, or act, like they were designed to eat plants, do they?

As one who is totally committed to the YEC position, I have some thoughts on this conundrum.

First of all, Gen. 1:30 makes it very clear that in the original creation God did indeed intend that ALL creatures were to eat plants: “and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food.” It is worth noting that this verse does not necessarily exclude the eating of meat … but for the sake of argument, let’s agree that it does. Thus, at the end of day 6, I’ll agree that “everything that moves on the earth” was an herbivore; i.e., at this point animals did not kill one another for food … there was no death in the world – yet.

Something happened that changed this situation: the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden. With this sin death entered into the world (“… just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin …” Rom. 5:12). The amount of time that passed between the creation week and the Fall is not known, but it is reasonable to suspect that it was not very long. In any event, even if animals were originally all herbivores, with this incident some of them became carnivores. Being omniscient, God knew about the Fall before it happened, of course, and knew that some animals would become carnivorous. Knowing that the great majority of their time on earth as a species would be as carnivores, He designed them for this purpose.

It should be noted that God’s sanction of an animal diet for man after the Flood, in Gen. 9:3, applies to man and not animals. The fact that death entered into the world at the Fall certainly provides justification for animals, at least, to become carnivorous at this point (the Fall), even if they were not previously.

I think that the notion that lions and sharks and killer whales and T. Rexes were designed by God to be plant eaters is a little foolish, and pretty difficult to defend. I know, for I have tried! I don’t entirely rule it out, but I really don’t think it’s necessary. At the end of the creation week, God knew perfectly well that it wasn’t going to be long before sin and death would enter into the world, so He designed living creatures accordingly. (cont.)

cont.

I recognize the possibility that God could have rearranged the genetic makeup of some creatures at the Fall, thus converting them to carnivores, but, again, I don’t think that this was probably necessary. Like I said above, I think it is more likely that this design was already in place.

“Christians are called on to have be prepared to give reasons for what we believe, so it is our obligation to try to understand the rationale for what we think is true.”

While I respect your right to believe in YEC, which is obviously quite deeply held, please note the fact that is what #John 1453 and I others have been doing in exhaustively giving both valid and scientific reasons for OE beliefs. As we have noted before, all the positions CMP brought out above have theological validity and all have weaknesses. I personally don’t think any side can totally refute the other for that reason. That isn’t my object anyway, but to fulfill exactly what your quote above indicates.

That’s why I would like to hear some other points of view like the the Gap theory and the Time Relative one for instance, because obviously there are many valid areas of agreement and disagreement between all the different camps, and this has basically been a discussion involving only two of them.

mbaker,

My “be prepared” quote was only intended to encourage those who have not done so to dig into the available info, such as the books I referenced. I agree with you about the inability to totally refute any of the positions. However, many times in this blog it has been said that the YEC position is “impossible” or subject to a “death knell”. Hence my efforts to dispel such false ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, Time Relative is a subset of YEC. There is some info on this and articles referenced in my 5 part post on “light time travel problem”. It is an interesting concept, consistent with general relativity, and there is some very recent work that has been done.

Which number was that series of comments? I remember reading them, but didn’t realize that Time-Relative was a sub-set of YEC. CMP seems to have put that in a different category entirely.

I do not claim that YEC is false, only that Genesis should be read with more of a historical context than a literal time line of creation, since it’s my understanding that even YEC’s admit God, who defines Himself as the “I Am” is under no time constraints. That would seem to me a dichotomy of YEC that we are taught to read Genesis with a very specific literal time frame instead of considering the possiblility that a day could have been millions or even billions of years long during the creative process, yet defending YEC at the same time with other facts from the scientific community regarding the age of rocks and trees. To me that’s another strong weakness in the YEC argument.

It makes so much more sense to me to read Genesis as a historical book regarding what already happened than to attempt to make it into a science of its own. If God created everything why, except for evolution of course, would He be opposed to science and the Bible agreeing on the time line of creation? That just doesn’t compute to me, that in and of itself a literal reading of creation time would result in a whole different set of ‘scientific’ facts. it would seem to me more to disprove the Bible among unbelievers, not to mention it creates more questions than answers for the rest of us having to explain the vast difference in time lines to others.

I was raised in the YEC camp and it was when I began to research all the creation positions held by theologians that I became a believer that OE made much more sense in light of all the scientific discoveries being made. To me, it makes science and the Bible compliment each other, except for the evolution camp.

mbaker,

My posts on the light time travel problem begin in #372, but due to being delayed for moderation, they are not sequential. I see them as numbers: 372-374 and 403-404. You can find them by searching for ‘of 5)’ in this blog page.

It makes so much more sense to me to read Genesis as a historical book regarding what already happened than to attempt to make it into a science of its own. If God created everything why, except for evolution of course, would He be opposed to science and the Bible agreeing on the time line of creation?

I couldn’t agree with you more. The YEC position is not at all opposed to science. It is opposed only to certain flawed interpretations of science, which only occur in “historical science” not operation or laboratory science.

That would seem to me a dichotomy of YEC that we are taught to read Genesis with a very specific literal time frame instead of considering the possiblility that a day could have been millions or even billions of years long during the creative process, yet defending YEC at the same time with other facts from the scientific community regarding the age of rocks and trees.

I defend YEC with science from the false claims that science has disproven YEC. I do not attempt to prove YEC with science.

Most YEC simply read Genesis as it is written…historical narrative. The question then becomes what did the author intend. I believe that the straight forward understanding of 6 normal days of creation, and a global flood are the correct ones. I belief this due to the biblical evidence. Here are some good articles about the meaning of Gen 1:
http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1
http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1

I was raised in the YEC camp and it was when I began to research all the creation positions held by theologians that I became a believer that OE made much more sense in light of all the scientific discoveries being made.

I was raised completely outside the church as an atheist. I studied science and math, and believed evolution and its billions of years timeline. Once I became a Christian, I reexamined what I was being taught in science regarding origins and found out that the conclusions of big bang and evolution had serious scientific problems.

You’ve now stated (as have many, including Pattle Pun quoted earlier in this blog) that your OE interpretation of scripture is driven by the belief that YEC conflicts with science. This is the usual case. I’d only recommend that you read some of the articles and books that I’ve referenced carefully and see if you still think such a conflict exists.

Most OEs accept the big bang, for example, and I’ve challenged the OEs here to explain how a single star is formed. There have been no takers. (see my post 145) Theories of universe origin that can’t explain stars have a big problem….

Richard,

I don’t accept the big bang theory either. I don’t know many OE’s that do, actually. And I prefer more unbiased accounts of creation, which I don’t consider any of the YEC’s to be at all. I have read most of the link you keep referencing, but find it to be more of a defense against valid scientific questions than a positive case for YEC. If we could get past that defensiveness, maybe we could have real conversation on the merits instead.

mbaker,

You’ve stated that you prefer OE over YEC due to scientific reasons. Hence the discussion of those scientific reasons.

Do you believe it possible that the YEC understanding is valid?

If not big bang, then what OE history of the universe and earth do you believe in?

Richard,

I think YEC is predicated mostly on a literal time line, rather than a historical narrative that could entertain the possibility of dating the earth in a more reasonable time frame. In that sense I believe its interpretation of the Genesis account is flawed, and why it bumps heads with science, other than evolution, which I don’t believe in. A sovereign God wouldn’t have needed endless experiments of man evolving through animals. I think that’s funny to even think of Him in those terms- the same God who is capable of giving us eternal life surely wouldn’t be so slip-shod that He could create the perfect Son only after a series of experiments with man! Who could trust a God like that?

I believe simply that the time frame is wrong in the YEC version of Genesis. All else I believe: that God created the universe and all that is in it, and that human beings are a newer creation, put in it when it was done. I simply think of Genesis more of a historical narrative about what God did, rather than establishing a particular time frame for the age of the earth itself.

mbaker

You state that you do not believe in the Big Bang, nor do you believe in the YEC “time frame” of Genesis.

I’m curious … how old, then, do you think the earth is? And what about the universe … how old do you think it is?

I don’t have a clue, Steve, and that’s the point: I believe anyone who believes in the sovereignty of God doesn’t either. Who are we to presume on the one who invented time to place a specific time frame on Him?

mbaker,

Do you realize that you just accused me and all YECs of not believing in the sovereignty of God?! And realize, you say this because I choose to believe what God has revealed to us in scripture, including the creation and flood accounts, along with the chronogenealogies.

Earlier you said:

I became a believer that OE made much more sense in light of all the scientific discoveries being made

So you choose to put these scientific discoveries (which are interpretations not ‘facts’) ahead of what you previously believed scripture to say, and then you accuse YECs of disbelieving in God’s sovereignity. Absolutely amazing…..

And this occurs after accusing us of works based salvation yesterday…

Do you know how very insulting this is?