Theistic Evolution and the Creator
I should probably state upfront that this is not an attack piece.
Despite Alden’s protestations otherwise, Intelligent Design is clearly a form of creationism. The concept, as drawn, tries to impose limits on the natural processes of evolution where they have not been demonstrated through the process of science. If he wants to conflate the issues of science and theology in this issue, then he is doing so in opposition to the philosophy of science and how science is done. Intelligent Design pretends to impose limits in order to demonstrate a designer by default.
Before I get into the main piece, I would like to make an observation about my co-bloggers here at Clashing Culture. Stephen Matheson is an accomplished researcher and teacher in the naturalistic processes of evolutionary development at Calvin College. He is a committed Christian who believes that a Creator is the author of the Universe. Thomas Robey is a biologist who is working very hard to complete his MD, and is a committed Christian, who also believes that a Creator is the author of the Universe. He sees the effects of the evolution of microbes in response to medicine, and also sees the limits of the design of the human body. Anastasia Bodnar is a researcher, and here is a small twist of irony. Anastasia is a strong agnostic, yet she is studying a form of design through genetic modification.
I am bringing it this all up because of another form of evolutionary philosophical thought (which some call a form of creationism) and that is Theistic Evolution. I don’t think it is creationism because it doesn’t mess with the actual science of evolution, but it does create some problems for me in trying to place the God of Theistic Evolution (TE) with the state of nature as it is observed.
In a sense, and correct me if I am wrong, the nature of TE is that evolution unquestioningly leads to “endless forms most beautiful” and leads from a common ancestor as yet unidentified. The process works with the mysterious guidance of the Creator, leading us through to the ascent of man. Ken Miller is an advocate of TE, and yet echoed Gould’s statement that if we were to rewind the tape of evolution it is unlikely to have resulted in mankind as we know ourselves.
TE still proposes that mankind is a teleological development of evolution, and that God is the guide that led evolution to us animals with souls. It holds that even if the creation stories of the Genesis accounts are not literally necessary in order to be a religious Muslim, Jew or Christian, at least there is a reason to trust that God has an active role in our lives, deaths and afterlives. But here is where my problem lies.
Thomas Malthus
Malthus’ essays on population and overpopulation from an economics standpoint inspired, at least in part, Charles Darwin’s understanding of natural selection as a creative force in combination with variation and heredity. Populations are overly fecund, and so through processes of reproduction each species will fill its niche being stopped only by death, destruction, starvation and then evolution comes in. The species whose variations give them even the slightest advantage over their sister variations will have a greater chance at survival should the environment force adaptation. It is a lesson in fluid dynamics, in that while seeking equilibrium things remain unequal in nature. (Fluids seek equilibrium in temperature and volume.)
In responding to the urge to reproduce and eat, nature is red in tooth and claw. It’s a metaphor for the violence in nature, and even plants participate in the violence, seeking ascendancy over competing plants through spreading deeper roots, growing bigger leafs or growing taller in seeking the materials they need to create their food. Plants and animals defend themselves against being eaten through developing defenses that increase their survivability against their predators, and equilibrium forces natural selection not to overreach (costs and benefits, while not drawn on charts by plants trying to figure out the best survival strategy with the least energy cost, are important. Too much defense takes away energy used for other needs for survival.)
If we consider Theistic Evolution, then we need to figure out what kind of God is proposed and maintained. A Creator who has created such a world in which death drives natural selection in order to achieve humanity could hardly be considered to be a benevolent creator. Theistic evolution would seem more likely to accept the God of the Old Testament who gave favor in war to Joshua, enabling the slaughter of the Canaanites and those others who stood in his way.
The Creator of Theistic Evolution seems to me more the one who favors certain froms of life over others, considering the estimate that 99% of all life forms (I am tentative about using the word species, see Wilkins,) are now extinct.
So, I ask, who would be the loving God of Theistic Evolution. Conceptually, any God involved in evolution wouldn’t be a loving God who gave his only son for our salvation, but a God who either is distant as in the deist conception, or actively cruel and capricious. Considering the damage that Man, presumed to be the highest achievement of Theistic Evolution has wreaked on our environment, I would think that the near God of the Abrahamic religions could have found a better way.
Can anyone fill me in on how Theistic Evolutionists reconcile nature with Nature’s God?
“The concept, as drawn, tries to impose limits on the natural processes of evolution where they have not been demonstrated through the process of science.”
I think you have this exactly backwards, but I won’t belabor that point.
Your challenge to Theistic Evolution is basically the age-old question of evil, but I appreciate the new twist: If God did indeed institute evolution and common descent, the presumption indeed is that He created a violent system, and yes, you’d have to presume that He favors one species over another (at least, I certainly hope so!).
One of my issues with Theistic evolution is that indeed, it seems to fail miserably in answering the question of evil. Did God actually institute a violent evolutionary scheme, or would they say that evolution as we know it is evil, a corruption of Satan?
Good question, Mike. I look forward to some proposed answers.
The Theistic Evolutionist has no more of an issue accounting for the pain and misery in the world than the Creationist; in either case they believe God sets up a system that ends up with millions and millions of creatures living and dying, and some of them (like us) having the additional horror of knowing they are going to die.
For the believer, with the presupposition of God’s existence, there are several theological answers. I go into a couple of them at my blog, but they are not scientific answers, and would not pass any empirical tests.
The question itself does pose two things, an objection and a assumption. The first, the objection, is plain: pain and suffering exist, so how can God, if he exists, be a loving God? The second, the assumption is harder to fathom: perhaps pain and suffering aren’t bad things at all. We assume they are because we don’t like pain, and we don’t want to die. But that may not be God’s view.
Frank, that’s kind of scary. Some people (Mother Theresa comes to mind) think that suffering is what god wants. Maybe suffering brings us to some sort of higher level… I can’t held but recoil at any argument going in that direction. To choose to have the innocent suffer – children born to simply die from horrible painful diseases or simply from starvation, not to mention the countless animals… If that’s god, I’d rather not have anything to do with it.
From a societal standpoint, I think it’s a dangerous view. Idolizing a loving, forgiving god at least has some societal benefit, but I can’t think of any benefit from idolizing pain and death. In fact, I can think of a few societies (especially pre-Columbian meso-American) that did just that, with less than nice results.
First, Mike, there’s no need IMO for you to include the “this is not an attack piece” disclaimer, at least not for my benefit. Your post asks a good (if ancient) question, and besides, you’ve earned my trust and goodwill such that I wouldn’t suspect “attack” even if/when you get feisty or snippy.
If the question is, as Frank suggests, how does a “theistic evolutionist” deal with evil, then the answer will have little or nothing to do with how that person came to embrace evolutionary explanations. As I’ve explained before on my blog, the problem of evil doesn’t have anything specific to do with evolution or natural history.
Now, one can make it look like evil is a specific problem for evolutionary creationists like me, by talking of evolution as a “tool” that God “used” to create humans and other masterpieces of creation. Then one can ask, as Mike seems to, how a Christian can picture a loving God using a death-laced “tool” like descent with modification. I have two comments in response to that question.
1) The question itself is a little weird. The problem I have with it is its assumed metaphor of evolution as a “tool,” perhaps one of several God could have selected. I just don’t see creation that way. I see the evolutionary development of life forms as itself a brilliant creation, not as some means (imperfect or otherwise) of doing the real business of making extant organisms. Without minimizing the thorny issue of evil, I reject Mike’s view of the process as capricious or wasteful, and I am exhilarated, not sickened, by the fact that earth’s history is filled with zillions of organisms now long gone, zillions of spectacular creations now known only to Him. Evil may suck, but the Creator’s extravagance is something I refuse to ignore or to disparage.
2) More importantly, I see the universe as a creation a priori. I don’t look at it to see if it’s a creation. I already know it’s a creation, the handiwork of a holy and loving God. So the existence of evil of any kind, whether it’s a particular example of human evil, or the pervasive suffering (human or non-human) that is part of the natural world, can have only a few possible explanations. Two, actually: the evil exists because the creation or some subset thereof chose it, or the evil exists because it is a part of the fabric of the creation itself. Or, of course, some of both. Myself, I’m undecided on the relative contributions of these sources, and I consider it to be a mystery.
The point, though, is that there’s something very odd about looking at creation, judging it to be unworthy in some ways, then concluding that it couldn’t have been created by God. This is tantamount to proclaiming that you actually know how God should have done His work. (I’ll grant that this nicely captures the arrogant foolishness of most creationist thought, and especially of ID creationism.) My view is the opposite: we don’t yet know how God governs his creation, or how the whole thing works. So let’s find out.
I am sure that it looks a bit like hubris for an atheist to try to figure out the mind of God
Now I wonder if you think that mankind was God’s goal in evolution, and why we have so many physical problems. I think that Anastasia brings out an important point in the ways that human suffering caused by our poor design makes the idea of evolution as the Creator’s means repellent. It’s hard to argue with an a priori assumption, and it’s argument that I have been having with Alden for several years now.
I’m all for finding out how it all works, which is I why I am happy that we have theistic evolutionists earnestly interested in the process.
And Stephen, I included the intro for people who are not familiar with the mission of this blog, and I appreciate what you wrote about me. Thanks!
Well, I don’t think that humankind was God’s only goal in the vastness of creation. I do think that he intended to create humans as His image bearers, though I’m flexible (as in uncommitted) on how much “freedom” one ascribes to the creation. As for imperfection and suffering, it all comes down to the problem of evil. Mike, Anastasia, that’s a real problem, but it has nothing to do with common descent. Problems caused by “poor design” are “repellent” to certain views of God whether the problems arose during evolutionary development or during instantaneous creation last Thursday.
I think we should definitely discuss the problem of evil, if not now then sometime, and even regularly. Please don’t understand me to be minimizing its impact. But it’s a real mistake, in my opinion, to attach the problem of evil with evolution. If anything, principles of evolutionary creation make it easier to approach the problem. Try Steve Martin’s superb blog, An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution, and especially his newest post, for some nice discussion of relevant issues, and for a sense of where growing numbers of evangelicals are going with respect to evolution and theodicy.
Anastasia, I fully agree. The concept that what we view as evil might be considered good by God is indeed scary. We certainly can’t make it part of public policy, and as far as I know, Mother Theresa never advocated sending teams of goons out to break people’s kneecaps to increase suffering. But, I think we can agree that her view may cause people to become hardened, and not help those who are suffering. (Its interesting that her example doesn’t show that; instead she dedicated her life to comforting those who were suffering.)
Its usually bad to mix social policy and theology. Just as “social Darwinism” was a cruel application of valid scientific ideals into the social arena, the idea that death isn’t the end of existence shouldn’t lead to cruel social policy.
Analogies always fall apart, so they are only moderately useful, but here is one from real life: My grandson Matthew, at 19 months old, had to be present when his little brother was given his first vaccinations. My daughter didn’t think it would be so traumatic for him, but she now realizes that he could not reason through the experience, and know that the real pain and suffering he was seeing his brother go through had a purpose. He declared the nurse “bad”, and crumpled into my daughter’s arms. He certainly wanted nothing to do with her, and cowered from her for the rest of the time.
The usefulness of the view that there may be some purpose to all of this is limited; it is useful to the individual, and not to the overall, greater discussions, or ultimately, of our understanding of the natural world. But in the end, each of us face pain and death as an individual. And that is at the root of the question about reconciling a loving God with Nature’s God.
It makes no difference to the study of evolution. But it makes a big difference to the person pondering it.
The problem with fundamentalism – in fact this might even be a definition of fundamentalism – is that it begins with an answer and bends every question and every piece of evidence until it comes us with the answer. I think the question of theodicy contains a shadow of the same tendency: how can a good God produce a universe in which there are intestinal worms and Robert Mugabe? It doesn’t compute because we are starting with a pre defined idea of God and of God’s power to create. On Mt Sinai when Moses had the chance to ask for God’s name he was given a verb not a noun: I Am. We start with what is, and end there as well. Part of what is, is the indisputable fact of evolution,and your question is really about whether this evolution is purposeful, and if so, what this might reveal about God and God’s nature.
I like Charles Birch’s idea that the universe has purpose but not design. Inarguably, the universe seems to produce things of ever greater levels of complexity and with ever greater levels of existence – to use the term in the same way as the existentialist theologians. That it, some things just are. Others are alive, others know that they are alive, others know that they know…. and so on. The universe produces greater levels of existence and sentience but the exact path through which it achieves this is not mapped out in every detail. It’s much the same as a rock sitting on top of a hill. You know that gravity and erosion being what they are, sooner or later the rock will be at the bottom of the hill, but the course it will take and the process by which it achieves it’s journey is somewhat random.
Now this may sound like a form of Deism, except for something else that is: the sense of the numinous which is fairly widely experienced, which doesn’t prove much. The sense of the Other is subjectively not objectively experienced though, and for anyone to whom it has happened it becomes a fact as inarguable as the process of evolution. God is present to me subjectively, and the Thou revealed in that subjective experience seems to have a powerful interest in the sorts of higher existence which the universe seems set up to produce. To ask about the nature of God requires reflection on those two things – others probably as well, but at least those two.
It seems to me that reflection should start with ontology. What does it mean to exist? What is the means by which I exist and have this self awareness which enables me to ask all these high falutin’ questions? Perhaps in the light of those questions, issues such as death have a different weighting?
Frank wrote
Well, anecdotally at least, that’s not the universal case. I’m an atheist, I know I’m going to die (and given my age, sooner rather than later), but I do not find “horror” in that knowledge. Nor do I fear death. I fear the pain that can accompany dying (I’ve seen a lot of that pain in 35 years on a volunteer fire department/emergency squad). I fear the gross indignities that this society, via its employment of extreme medicine and its religiously-imposed ban on self-euthanasia, imposes on the dying by keeping the flesh alive after the mind/self has already died. I resent those who prevent me from deciding the time and manner of my own death. They arrogate to themselves power over my life that they deny me over my death.
I regret that I will die, not least because I’m always curious and want to know how things will come out. But I do not fear it. Death is genuinely an integral and inevitable part of being alive, for individuals as well as for evolving populations.
And there is no “horror,” at least not for me. I regard that as a bogeyman invented (or at least encouraged) as a means of controlling people, not freeing them.
When I die I will become what I was before I was conceived and born: not an “I”. The atoms of which I’m composed, all the atoms heavier than hydrogen that were manufactured billions of years ago in fusion reactions inside stars and that were flung into space when those stars themselves died spectacularly, will go back into the cycle on earth. And then someday, when the Sun itself dies, they will be thrown back into the larger universe, maybe to be incorporated into another new star and solar system where life might emerge. The “I” that was — that I am now — won’t participate in that, but the components that were together for a brief moment as this “I” will. That’s all I need to accept the fact of my ephemeral life and to accept its end. There is no “horror” there.
RBH, I salute your courage.
But, when the question is asked by someone (in this case a fellow atheist), there’s a presumption that a value judgment is behind it: death is cruel, pain is unfortunate, etc. “Why would God …” questions nearly always end not with a zen-like acceptance of fate but a challenge that because some evil exists, good must not exist.
Your post does provide a framework for what I said in the past; the organisms that have lived and died through the millenia don’t see the process as “red in tooth and claw”, but as part of their life. There are few organisms in the history of life who have been able to ponder the “why” of their existence. The fact that we do have that ability causes most of us a certain amount of frustration.
No, Frank, the reason that I brought it up has nothing to do with how the non-human participants see death. It has to do with the idea of how the theistic evolutionists see it. Stephen brought great perspective into an area that has never made sense to me.
Like Richard I don’t fear what happens to me after dying. It’s dying I fear, because it so often involves a great deal of pain.
My mother died last November, and the ambulance EMT was a member of her same church congregation. Mom died in the ambulance, her gnarled athritic hands clasped in the EMT’s as they recited the 23rd psalm. Mom was in a lot of pain, but reciting the psalm gave her comfort and she truly believed that she was soon to lie beside peaceful waters. Her last words were “I am going to be there soon.”
No atheist in the world would have argued with her at that moment, nor tried to correct her. My grief is mitigated by the knowledge that she is no longer wracked by pain, failing kidneys and severe asthma. She believed that within minutes she would be with Jesus. I am happy for her at how she spent her last moments.
I digress (and grow sad again at my loss.)
Yes, there is a great deal of frustration that we don’t have any concept of what it will be like to not “be.” It is as hard to conceive as it is to conceive of what is “beyond” the edge of the universe. There is no beyond.
I would like to offer a perspective on the idea of death being a “bad thing” and God somehow being implicated as not being loving because of it exists. A couple days ago it hit 95 outside with high humidity and I enjoyed my air-conditioned house and work place. I drove to and from there in an air conditioned vehicle. Interestingly, both the vehicle, and the energy that propelled it was dependent on death. Millions of years of bacteria bloomed in the ocean and then died. Layers were built up on the ocean floor and eventually subducted into the earth, their kerogens cooked at high temperature and pressure. Now, millions of years later it has been pumped out as crude oil or natural gas. If it weren’t for millions of years of death, we would have little more than trees available for energy.
In addition, the vehicle itself would have been impossible without billions of years of life and death. Sulfate reducing bacteria transformed the water soluble minerals of the early earth that were toxic to advanced life and safely tucked them away in insoluble forms that are safe for life. Because they are now concentrated, we can mine them as magnetite ore to produce iron, bauxite to produce aluminum, chalcopyriet for copper and a myriad of others. All from very special organisms that lived their lives without knowing that we would be the beneficiary. Without bacterial life and death concentrating these elements we wouldn’t have been able to separate them efficiently. We would have remained in the Stone Age.
Moving closer to today, within the last few weeks chickens and cows were killed so I could enjoy their remains. They were prepared in ways that were very enjoyable as well as nourishing. So if so much good comes of death … why is it so repulsive to us? As a creationist, I see the theme of scripture to be that humanity is the focal point of all that has been created. We were created different in a fundamental way than the animals. We were created “In God’s Image.” Because our purpose was to image God, we have been given unique abilities to perceive purpose, hope and destiny and much more. We are physical beings so we were made with bodies designed to die like everything else, but according to the text, we were also even given a provision that would prevent this death. It was fruit from a specific tree. When we chose to act in a way that was not “In God’s Image” we were removed from having access to that fruit. We now all submit to death and it is the most difficult thing we deal with. Perhaps not when we die ourselves, as RBH has noted, but most acutely when someone we love deeply dies. My two closest guy friends have died. I lost one last year and one 3 years ago. I still miss them, but I don’t see this as evidence for God not being loving.
A few things strike me, and this is perhaps where the anti-evolution backlash is coming from. Evolution shows that we are not different in a fundamental way physiologically, our brains being the only notable exception. Evolution has led to other animals that have better eyes than we do, we have backs which work better for quadrupedal locomotion than for bi-pedal. The pelvic girdle has done a poor job of adapting for birth, and childbirth in humans requires close medical attention in order to avoid the death of mothers.
If we are created in God’s image, what is God trying to tell us? Is it that there is dignity in suffering? All of the forms of death that you discuss make much more sense from a naturalistic perspective and adding a Creator’s purpose severely muddles the problem. It’s not just that life dies, it is how it dies. Starvation, predation, parasites which cause great pain, and these things drive selection and evolution. It makes more sense to me as a universe that has no deeper, hidden purpose. The fit survive and thrive until their environment changes so much that their adaptations become hindrances.
Losing loved ones isn’t what made me turn from religion and God, anyway. It was a realization that I couldn’t see a reason to believe any longer. The Earth is a pale blue dot when viewed from Pluto, and Pluto is in near space compared to the breadth of the Universe. It hardly makes sense to think that we are the ultimate goal of creation of a universe 47 billion light years across, created 13.7 billion years ago.
I suspected that my jumping into this discussion would draw out the best counter arguments in the cosmos and I see my concern was well founded. You mentioned that “we are not physiologically different from the animals in a fundamental way.” I agree completely. This is expected from a creation perspective as well as evolutionary. In Genesis chapter one, two verbs are used in the creation of humanity. In verse 26, God states “let us make man in our image.” Here the word used for “make” is the Hebrew word “asa,” it means to produce or fabricate. This is the same word used for making the animals. So we should expect similarities with the animals. The next verse it states “And God created man in his own image. Here the verb used for create is “Bara.” In Biblical literature this verb is only used for God as the subject and always refers to the making of something brand new; something that has never existed before. So from a creation perspective, it is expected that mankind would be similar in many ways, but also unique in others.
The thing that makes mankind so unique is in fact his brain, which you mentioned, is a notable exception. It is differences in the brain that allow for rational thought, language, abstract expression and the ability to contemplate the past and future. You mentioned that some animals have better eyes than we. Many animals have physical advantages over us. Some can run faster, have sticky feet, swim faster etc. The thing that is unique and appeared new in mankind is his moral and spiritual dimension. This is what I would assume the text is referring to as being “in his image.” Perhaps this is why anthropologists have referred to homo sapiens-sapiens as “homo Religiousis.”
I’m not familiar with the argument that our spines are more suitable for quadruped locomotion. Although I understand that in order to walk upright there is quite a lot involved.
•The opening in the skull that receives the spine has to be moved to the center.
•Inner ear bones have to be modified for balance.
•Curvature has to be introduced in the upper part of the spine.
•Vertebrate thickness must be increased to support the added stress.
•Length of the spine must be increased.
•Rib cage has to be restructured to bring the center of mass nearer the spine.
•Upper limbs need to be shortened.
•Pelvis has to be restructured.
•Angle the femur makes with the mid-line of the body has to be adjusted.
•Joint surfaces in the knees and feet have to be altered.
•Muscular structure has to be reworked as well.
All these need things need to be changed in concert in order for a quadruped to become bi-pedal. Three of these strictly concern the physiology of the spine alone and the human spine is suited very well for bipedal locomotion. I definitely need to research this ascertain further.
I realize that the issue of pain and suffering is a sticky subject. Many religious people as well are opposed to it. I can do little more than reveal that I personally don’t see it as a problem. The reason has to do with the purposes revealed in the scripture for creating humanity. Expecting you to just “accept it on faith” because I happen to believe it, is not reasonable. Dr. Avalos mentioned something similar in his recent debate with Pastor Mike Housholder. I can’t quote him perfectly, but he offered a concern that the problem with issues of faith “is that they cannot be verified.” To a degree he is correct about this and this is why I see “blind faith” as such a dangerous thing.
But there are things about faith that offer themselves to scientific testing. Each of the religions Holy Books can be examined for things that can be scientifically verified. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Koran and the Bible are major ones. If it can be shown that any of these Holy Books are not accurate in their statements about the universes origin and development, they can be rejected as religious feel-good material. But if one perfectly fits with Big Bang Cosmology, talks about the expansion of the universe as a fact, lists the correct order of how the earth formed and makes verifiable scientific statements, then the probability of it being of divine inspiration can be quantified statistically.
If a Holy Book written 1,000’s of years before the scientific age could be shown to be accurate in things no human at the time could have known, then the probability can be calculated for it to have happened by “chance.” Scientists consider probabilities of less than one chance in 10 to the 50th power to be impossible. If the testable scientific statements of a Holy Book are shown to be true and the probability of it happening by accident is beyond this probably, then this is evidence that it is of divine origin. It then ceases to be blind faith to believe in that particular Holy Book’s God. It is not reasonable then to accept those things it claims that cannot be scientifically verified. The Biblical ascertain that death has a purpose that is good in the largest context would be one of them.
Jim, I am not going to answer your last question myself. Instead I recommend a book by Victor Stenger – God, The Failed Hypothesis. As a physicist, Stenger approaches the questions you ask and gives far more complete answers than I ever could. He doesn’t address the biological question directly, at least not the issue brought up in this post. But he does clearly show how scripture doesn’t reconcile with science (except, perhaps in poetic ways with great license.)
Mike, I’m sorry for your loss. Losing a parent is a hard thing, and seeing them in pain for years is very hard too (I have a similar experience with my father, who passed away after a 10 year decline with Alzheimer’s and kidney failure).
I’m a little different than other conservative Christians in that I hold firm to some very basic beliefs I consider core doctrine, but I’m not invested very much in other doctrines I consider less important. Your question does pose a big problem to those who consider man’s Fall the reason pain and death entered the world. Only young earth Creationists have a good answer for it; I can’t see how anyone who believes anything died prior to man arriving on the scene can hang onto the doctrine, and that includes gap-theory creationists, old earth creationists and IDers. I considered the idea that the fall of man was the cause of evil in the world long ago, and abandoned the idea, because its obvious that pain and death existed before man became alienated from God.
I will echo the many here who point out that this is just a reiteration of the problem of evil. Having said that, I admit I sometimes struggle with the amount of time there was suffering and death (and joy and contentment let us not forgot) if God, per His self revelation, was really most interested in our very short recent history. But that there is pain and suffering is a fact, whether we evolved or were created 6k years ago. And frankly I don’t find the YEC answer to make all that much more sense. It’s man fault? Let’s put aside for a second the usual objections to what is free will, and how can those who don’t know good or evil choose evil, etc. It makes sense that perhaps man has to suffer for his disobedience, though maybe it would be a bit more fair if only the original couple. But what about the rest of life? Why do they have to suffer because of what two humans did. Let me just replay the scene
Lamb: “What up Lion. Want to go lie down together on the hill and chill out like we did yesterday?….dude, what is all that red stuff on your teeth”
Lion: “Oh, uh, nothing. Hey, come here for a moment, I want to show you something”
Lamb: “Yo, back off dude, why are you trying to bite me!”
Lion: “I’m going to eat you”
Lamb: “WHAT! What are you talking about.”
Lion: “Turns out these sharp teeth actually have another purpose then munching on berries.”
Lamb: “Dude you’re insane. I’m going to go get Tiger. We’re going to have to sit you down and straighten you out”
Lion: “Sure, go ask him. You’ll find him over hill finishing off the last unicorn”
Lamb: “WHAT! What is going on!!!”
Lion: “You know that tall walking couple, you know, the furless great apes. Well yesterday they ate some fruit from a forbidden tree.”
Lamb: “………….SO!………….”
Lion: “So Now I’m going to eat you”
Lamb: “Dude, WTF! What does their fruit preferences have to do with me!”
Oh, Pete. That’s pretty funny, but everyone knows that lions and lambs didn’t speak English. They spoke Aramaic, or something ancient and Jewish.