I recently wrote a post called “A theological argument against young earth creationism.” In it, my stated claim was “YEC is morally impermissible…” Why? Because “on YEC, animals died because of Adam’s sin…” not because of anything they themselves did. This argument is intended to use the YEC assumption that animal death is an inherently bad thing against them. Let’s outline the argument:
1. If animals did not die before the fall, then their death must be the result of sin.
2. Animals are incapable of sinning (they are not morally responsible agents)
3. Therefore, animal death must be the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin.
The argument as it stands contains a few assumptions which I’ve found in YEC literature. 1) Animals did not die before the fall; 2) Death is inherently a bad thing; 3) all physical death is the result of sin. Now a denial of these assumptions can undermine my argument; I grant that. My point is that if one holds to these three assumptions, my argument shows that YEC is morally impermissible.
Now, Answers in Genesis has provided a critique of my argument, and I must say that I’m very appreciative of their interaction on this important topic. Elizabeth Mitchell wrote the entry, check out her critique, in its entirety, here (under the “And don’t miss…” section). Let me examine the criticism below. (I recommend reading my entire post prior to this one in order to have proper interaction with it.)
First, Mitchell wrote, that my post “…attempts to show young earth creationism is wrong by demonstrating death documented in the fossil record preceded human sin and was unrelated to it.”
I admit I was a bit befuddled when I read this, because nowhere in my post did I try to “demonstrate death document in the fossil record preceded human sin…” I’m not sure where this claim was made in my original post. I don’t mention the fossil record anywhere in the original post and so I’m a bit concerned by this apparent misreading of my article.
Then, she wrote, “He cites no Scripture…” Indeed, I did not cite a single Scripture passage. However, the argument is directly based upon the assertions that some YECs make. But what kind of rebuttal is it to say “He cites no Scripture…” anyway? An argument must be dealt with whether it has Bible passages in it or not.
The argument itself is based upon the logic of the YEC argument against old earth positions. The picture to the right here demonstrates pictorially the view most YECs present of old earth positions–that animal death before the fall makes God morally questionable (image credit to AiG, accessed here). For example, premise 1 is backed up by this quote from the AiG critique: “the connection between Adam’s sin and animal death…” Premise 2 is indeed mostly an assumption, but I think it is one that most Christians would grant. Animals are not on the same level as humans; they are not moral agents made in God’s image. Three is again backed up by the quote I put above; the AiG (and more generally, YEC) argument assumes that all death is the result of Adam’s sin.
Now, AiG does claim that the Bible backs up this position. They wrote, that I “[seem] oblivious toRomans 8:20–22, which explains the connection between Adam’s sin and animal death” (Mitchell, cited below). Well no, I’m not oblivious to Romans 8:20-22, which makes no mention of animal death. In fact, the word “death” is not even used in the passage. Thus, it looks like this an inference from Scripture, not an obvious connection. And an inference is subject to presuppositions. The YEC presupposition is that animals did not die before the fall, so of course their inference will lead to a reading of Romans 8 in light of that presupposition.
Mitchell argues in regard to my statement, “The post on Answers in Genesis hints that it is because animals are cursed due to the serpent’s deception of Adam and Eve,” that “…we [AiG] teach no such thing” (Mitchell, cited below). That’s fair, and I appreciate the clarification. The reason was that I read the following quote on the original post I was working from: “The first recorded death and passages referring to death as a reality came with sin in Genesis 3 when the serpent, Eve, and Adam all were disobedient to God” (Hodge, cited below). The wording here does seem to at least “hint” at a connection between the serpent and the rest of animal death, but I could be mistaken here and I’m fine with that.
To sum up, my argument was based upon rather firmly established YEC assumptions. That animals did not die before the fall is argued throughout YEC literature, and both posts I cite have this idea in them. That animal death is due to the sin of Adam is demonstrated in the AiG response to my post. That animal death is somehow inherently bad is shown in the picture above as well as throughout YEC literature. For just one example, Bodie Hodge wrote, in the article I was originally linking (cited below), “God gave the command in Genesis 2:16–17 that sin would be punishable by death. This is significant when we look at the big picture of death. If death in any form was around prior to God’s declaration in Genesis 1:31 that everything was ‘very good,’ then death would be very good too—hence not a punishment at all.” But just from these three theses I can construct my argument (as above) which leads to the conclusion:
“Animal death must be the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin…” (on the YEC position).
And, as I argued in my original post, this seems to undermine the goodness of God on YEC, for “the animals didn’t do anything. One day, they were happily living potentially infinitely long lives, eating plants, and doing their animal things. The next day, Adam sinned, and so God decides to start killing them all… not because they themselves sinned” (here).
So, given the assumptions that YECs make, I have constructed an argument that shows their own position is morally impermissible. What does this entail? I suggest it entails that the reading of the texts that YECs present is incorrect and must be modified. I suggested a few ways to do this in the original post, so I won’t repeat them here. Ultimately, it seems my original post has not been refuted.
Sources
Bodie Hodge, “Biblically, Could Death Have Existed before Sin?” Answers in Genesis. 2010. Accessible here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/02/satan-the-fall-good-evil-could-death-exist-before-sin
Elizabeth Mitchell, “News to Note, March 17, 2012.” Answers in Genesis. Accessible here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/17/news-to-note-03172012.
J.W. Wartick, “Animal Death?- A Theological Argument Against Young Earth Creationism.” 2012. Accessible here: http://jwwartick.com/2012/03/12/against-yec-theology/.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Interesting. Thanks
Posted by writeroo | March 18, 2012, 9:48 AMI have not thought about this earlier but I think your argument it sound and that it holds water.
Posted by Andreas | March 18, 2012, 6:13 PMHave you read William Dembski’s End of Christianity? He has an intriguing way of dealing with this problem.
Posted by James Berry | March 19, 2012, 12:17 PMI have not, but I keep hearing about it. It’s very much on my wish list.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 19, 2012, 1:10 PMI think of it more as, when man sinned, the perfect world was rendered imperfect or broken. So, death and decay entered in, and all that was very good is no longer good, because it’s been cut apart from God’s perfection.
That is the moral aspect to it. Is it immoral (or not morally permissible) for mountains to erode, or beaches to wash away, or flowers to die and decompose? What level of “alive” is required before it becomes morally impermissible for sin to cause its physical destruction?
Posted by dfwmerlin | March 19, 2012, 12:34 PMI think AIG’s point about the lack of scriptural reference was to point out the unguided conclusion of your reason, for quite many things can be assumed by reason alone.
I also think the conclusions based on scripture and observation are this:
Creatures (including humans) on earth can and do suffer pain and death not merely by their own sin, but also by the sin of those to whom they are subjects, as in the children of Adam, and as in the plants and animals. And, yes, this law of death was immediately demonstrated by God himself in the first slaughter of animals, and in millennia of prescribed slaughter. Genesis also states quite plainly that that all these animals and people were originally plant eaters, with no need for any to kill or any to die.
Again, the prescribed order of subjugation is this: animals to people, people to God.
Keep also in mind that the idea that creatures suffer pain and death is not necessarily punishment of the sin of those that suffer, for Christ did not sin. Nevertheless, the suffering of pain and death are consistently presented as consequences of sin. In fact, I might argue that what what we observe as suffering on earth is not THE punishment, but the foreshadowing of the punishment we deserve.
In any case, AIG is not making up the rules. But to say that animals might as well have been dying before the fall as they now die after the fall is scripturally baseless.
I think AIG is making good scriptural points, and that they are frequently able to back these up with observation.
Posted by Eric Matthews | March 19, 2012, 1:08 PMI am an OEC, but I try to keep an open mind. I believe that Scripture is inerrant & infallible, but that our interpretations of Scripture are not, and I believe that, while the fall affected every part of us, including our mind and reason, our reasoning powers are not totally ruined. We know that 2 + 2= 4 and we are able to think logically about other problems also. I also consider myself a Presuppositionalist, so I do believe that when Scripture makes a clear statement about something, that statement should be accepted as valid- God has spoken through His Word and His Word cannot be broken. However, I do not believe that the early chapters of Genesis meet this standard and that they are open to various ways of interpretation. I find the scientific evidence for an old earth to be very convincing, and the attempts by YEC’s to explain why this evidence is faulty to be very unconvincing- differing speeds of light during different eras or light from distant stars created in transit, for example. So I do believe that there was animal death before the fall, and that the death of Romans 5:12 to refer to spiritual death as only man is created in the image of God and is a “living creature.” The Bible tells us that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork,” (Psalm 19:1) and that “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) I find that God’s handiwork can be quite clearly perceived through OEC and ID and that I (and I believe many others) find these concepts inspiring and convincing evidences of our Creator.
Posted by James Berry | March 19, 2012, 1:46 PMI think your argument contains at least one fatal flaw, regardless of the truth of the OEC or YEC position. First, if we grant the truth of your two premisses that 1) If animals did not die before the fall, then their death must be the result of sin and 2) Animals are incapable of sinning (they are not morally responsible agents), the conclusion (depending on how it was intended) that 3) Animal death must be the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin simply does not follow logically.
Your conclusion can be interpreted in at least two ways, so please correct me if there’s a third.
If you intended to say that 1) animal death SHOULD be the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin, BUT it’s not; therefore, it’s impermissible, you have a problem, since Adam and Eve were morally culpable agents. If, on the other hand, you meant to say that 2) animal death WAS the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin, but it should NOT have been, since animals are not culpable, you still have a problem. By your reasoning, all I have to do is show an instance of permissible animal death, based on someone else’s sin and your argument fails. The most obvious example is the one found in Genesis 3:21, where God Himself killed a non-morally culpable animal to make skins for Adam and Eve. If that death was permissible, then the animal death following the fall is also permissible. Either way, your argument does not stand.
Posted by puzzlephile | January 29, 2013, 6:35 PMThank you for your very thoughtful critique. I really do appreciate these types of comments that allow iron to sharpen iron.
One thing I have to note is that I did pull the argument out of the context in the original post, in which I was arguing specifically against one of the tenants of many YEC’s position. The original post can be viewed by clicking this link: Animal Death? A Theological Argument Against Young Earth Creationism. In that post, I note the general theological notion within YEC that:
I provide a few examples of this type of argument being used in YEC literature.
The argument that you critiqued is linked to this argument specifically. That is, the conclusion for the argument you are critiquing follows when you grant the argument of the YEC as presented above: that death is the result of sin.
So I think that your critique is actually quite strong against the partial argument given, but it doesn’t take into consideration the entire argument as outlined through the original post.
Now, given the Genesis 3:21 passage, this actually works exactly into my general framework suggested in the original post in which animal death is not necessarily a morally impermissible thing at all times. My point is that only by making animal death a bad thing (one might imagine the YEC saying “animal death is a bad thing, period; therefore you can’t have animal death before the fall”) does the YEC critique of OEC theology work. And because this framework of animal death is part of the general position of YEC, it reduces their position ad absurdem. In fact, your critique here shows how exactly wrong they are. Animals are not morally culpable agents, so their deaths do not necessarily have moral status. Of course, the cruel killing of animals is wrong, but that is almost entirely due to the wrongness for the moral agent doing that killing. It is not wrong for a hawk to cruelly kill a rabbit.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I hope by providing the general context I have given an answer. I think your critique actually shows how strong my argument is, once it is placed in the context of the original post.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | January 29, 2013, 7:36 PM