Date Modified:
On the night of February 16th, 2025, I read my weekly email from Answers in Genesis, and one of the stories I clicked on was “Twenty-Five Christians vs. One Atheist: Our Response”. As you’re probably guessing from the title of this post, the 1 atheist was Alex O’Connor, who’d gone under my radar until I read that article. I recommend watching Bryan Osborne’s response video, which explains where the Christians involved in the debate were going woefully wrong with their tactics (as the response video said in its title, “This Debate Was PAINFUL to Watch”)–lest you end up making the same mistakes in your confrontations with atheists; being well-versed in worldview apologetics, I was already familiar with most of the things Osborne brought out. But one thing he said particularly jumped out to me {jump to the 12:17 mark of Osborne’s video}: Alex’s claim in an earlier video that the suffering of animals is Christianity’s biggest problem, even bigger than the “Problem of Evil”. Having already included a response to the Problem of Evil at the end of Appendix A and a discussion about animal death before the fall in Chapter 16 of my upcoming book, I was curious to see if Alex had anything to bring up that I hadn’t considered. Plus, a comment on Osborne’s video by a “robinfeatherhead” brought out a major point Alex was making in the debate regarding animal suffering that sounded intriguing to me: “alex literally explains why animal suffering is philosophically a bigger problem than human suffering, in the video you’re critiquing. twice. it’s because most of the apologia for suffering is human oriented.” {Lack of capitalization in original.} Curious to see whether robinfeatherhead’s claim has any merit, I watched the entire debate segment on suffering.
Now, lest one point out that Alex was merely saying that animal suffering makes it “less likely” that God exists: this is disingenous, since the debate was clearly billed as “1 Atheist vs 25 Christians”; an Atheist insists there is no God; if his position intended to leave any possibility of God’s existence open, he would claim to be an Agnostic, not an Atheist. Hence, whether God exists (as opposed to whether God likely exists) is the core premise at issue. Nevertheless, Alex explains what he means by “less likely” in response to the first debater’s opening question {jump to the 1:42 mark}:
Of course we don’t know, but that’s why I use the phraseology of ‘unlikely’. I think that if you were to tell somebody who was sort of in some… Roussean state of nature, hadn’t seen the world, and you said that, ‘the world has been created by an omnibenevolent, all-powerful God’, what kind of world would that person be imagining? And if you dropped them into the world, if you- if you gave them the opportunity to become a wild animal like, in 2 seconds, I was just gonna turn you into a random wild animal somewhere on planet Earth… I think you would probably kill yourself before I had the opportunity because you know that the life of these animals is almost defined in terms of their suffering. {Emphases his.}
Of course, the Bible tells us that Adam was created in a Roussean state of nature (one “preceding socialization… thus devoid of social traits such as pride, envy, or even fear of others” {click on that last hyperlink}), which went away the instant God started talking to him. But the world Adam experienced just after being created on Day 6 was undoubtedly the kind of world a human would expect of “an omnibenevolent, all-powerful God”–and remained so until the Curse. This is the crucial part of the equation that Alex (and for that matter, everyone who promotes the Problem of Evil, the Epicurean Paradox, or whatever you want to call it, as a serious problem for theistic religions in general or Christianity in particular) CONSISTENTLY IGNORES, even in the earlier video (seriously, look up any flowchart diagram explaining the Epicurean Paradox; the whole problem is always phrased and presented in such a way that the Fall of Man and resultant Curse are totally left out of the discussion–meaning the questioners are ignoring the answer to their own question every time they ask it!). Well, except when someone finally brought it up at almost the end of that segment (which I’ll quote below; also, I suspect the first speaker was about to get to it when he was interrupted! {jump to the 2:58 mark}).
And lest Alex add that this information comes from Scripture, and thus requires the argument to import additional assumptions (namely, that the Biblical account of the Fall of Man is true), he goes on to tacitly admit that his own view relies on importing additional assumptions as well:
Hayden: “Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?”
Alex: “Depends exactly what you mean, uh, because of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering, you know needs the existence of the world, then it’s theism. But, granted the existence of a material world, let’s say, I think atheism.” (boldface mine)
In the debate video, he states his position that “Suffering makes God’s existence unlikely.” {jump to the 0:28 mark}, lays out the theistic evolutionism scenario (which, I agree, would require God to be an incompetent bungler, a sadistic ogre, or both), and then concludes, “I think that that’s less likely on theism. If you assume atheism or materialism not only do you explain this, you also come to expect it.” {Jump to the 1:27 mark} He also admits: “I’ll tell you what I’m assuming here. What I’m assuming here is that God would- a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to attain” {jump to the 7:45 mark}, but goes on to clarify “So perhaps I should say, unjustified instead of unnecessary” {jump to the 8:08 mark}–making my job easier!
And of greatest relevance to my discussion in this post is that he points out that “Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why something exists. Human free will, the development of the soul, higher order good, all of this kind of stuff–none of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals.” {jump to the 3:39 mark} And even near the end of the segment, when someone finally said: “Well, could you say that the result of why we suffer is because of Fall of Man?” He answered: “I would say not, ‘cuz I don’t believe in the Fall of Man [As I’ve seen SciManDan say {jump to the 29:50 mark for context}, “Incredulity Alert! Incredulity Alert! Incredulity Alert!”], but I also don’t think that that explains non-human animal suffering. The big thing that I wanna keep pressing is that the theodicies that we talk about, free will, Fall of Man, all of this kind of stuff–I don’t think applies to that deer with its leg caught under the branch that’s dying in confused agony.” {jump to the 17:53 mark} Finally, in a clip from another one of his earlier videos, Alex rehashes the points made in the other video, and then concludes: “At the very least, I think this means we should refuse to grant our scent- our ascent to Christianity, until some form of justification is forthcoming.” {jump to the 3:51 mark}
Challenge Accepted
First off, just because Alex doesn’t believe that the events of Genesis 1-3 are historically factual, doesn’t falsify them. In fact, it’s foul play for Alex to not accept the Fall of Man (even if just for the sake of argument) when letting a Christian try to make their case, because the Fall of Man is a core component of what the Bible teaches. As it’s well been said, you won’t have reason to accept the Good News (the Gospel Message, including that salvation has become available) unless you’re already aware of the Bad News (the Fall of Man and our subsequent continuance in sin, bringing about the death sentence that we need to be saved from–although the former acts on its own in cases like the newborn baby dying of cancer that Alex brings up as a counterexample to one of his opponents’ arguments {jump to the 6:45 mark}; as a result, that baby will end up in the New Heavens & New Earth, since they’d have no sins for God to judge). To borrow the terminology from Ken Ham’s book “Why Won’t They Listen?” {2002. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 30.}, Alex is trying to make a Christian defend the Power and Hope of the Gospel, without granting them the Foundational Knowledge for the Gospel as a starting premise. That would amount to defending a “Biblical Worldview” that isn’t truly Biblical. So it’s really no wonder his opponents in that debate failed so miserably; they weren’t defending Biblical Christianity! To paraphrase Charles Spurgeon: God’s Word is like a lion; let it out of the cage you’ve put it in, and it will defend itself.
Second, the reason he can claim that “evolution” lines up with reality is because of a classic equivocation fallacy among evolutionists: (Micro)evolution is observed; therefore, (macro)evolution is real. Alex constantly brings up the reality of “natural selection”, overlooking the fact that this process only works with the genetic information already present, and so has only ever been observed to result in microevolution (variations within a kind). At most, some species within a Biblical kind occasionally give rise to a new species of that same kind, but there are also genetic boundaries that can’t be crossed to allow members of one kind to have offspring of a different kind {scroll to the second blockquote under “Scientific Misconduct?”; the full peer-reviewed technical paper being quoted from is freely available to read here}; even evolutionist David S. Thaler, who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper confirming this reality (and I mean “confirming” quite literally; the former peer-reviewed paper was published before the latter–2016 versus 2018!), concluded that “If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies[.] They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space”. In contrast, macroevolution requires the ability for one kind to give rise to another kind (e.g., a kind of sea creature giving rise to a kind of terrestrial quadruped, as implied by the “Darwin Fish” symbol), which would require members to be able to cross “the vastness of empty sequence space” from one “compact cluster” to another (or more accurately, start their own isolated cluster). So why don’t we observe any individuals (let alone small sets of individuals in the process of starting up their own cluster) in between the clusters, when macroevolutionary models would have us expect plenty of them?
So here’s the Young-Earth Creationist view (technically known as the “Created Heterozygosity & Natural Processes [CHNP] Model”) that explains what we observe in nature: God imbued the capacity for most of this variation in the DNA of these creatures’ ancestors during the Creation Week (so they’d be able to fill every biome the earth would ever have); subsequently made some modifications at the time of the Curse to enable creatures to defend themselves from predation in a fallen world, thus giving rise to most of the violence and suffering we see in nature (e.g., Genesis 3:18 specifically mentions spinose structures arising from the Curse, and these structures are modified forms of plant parts that would’ve already existed); and has since allowed mutations to degrade the DNA further, sometimes even to the point of extinction (as we’ve recently been seeing with the Tasmanian devil), under the Curse.
Now for the actual explanation. If you want to show that your opponent’s position yields a problem (i.e., a “proof by contradiction”), then you need to assume all of your opponent’s premises (in order to make sure that none of those premises counter the argument you’re making); so attempts to show that the Biblical worldview contradicts itself (and/or reality) would require you to assume all the Bible’s premises in the process for the sake of argument–including the Fall of Man and resultant Curse. So-called “natural evil” (natural disasters, such as tornados) is also a result of the Curse; whenever Alex brings up that poor deer that died because its leg got trapped when a tree fell on it (a complete lack of human involvement is implied), that fits into this category. Why did natural disasters come into existence after the Fall of Man? Because God originally gave humans the whole world and the other creatures living in it as their dominion (Genesis 1:28). This is the key to the whole puzzle. Once Adam sinned, his whole dominion started being tainted by it; in fact, that dominion shifted from being ruled by humanity to being ruled by Satan (Hebrews 2:6-8 speaks of humanity not presently being in the position of authority they were created for — note all the past-tense verbs in verses 7 & 8a — and 2 Corinthians 4:4b refers to Satan as “the god of the age, of this one”–my word-for-word translation of the Greek phrase, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου). This is the source of all the gratuitous, needless, and/or unnecessary suffering in the world (although claiming it’s unjustified would ignore the explanation I’m giving right now). Paul went so far as to explain that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22c KJV); the Greek word for “creation” isn’t kosmos (world order/system), but ktisis (a thing created). This is why the effects of the Curse can be seen everywhere, even in things as remote from us as stars exploding in outer space (which are definitely part of the “creation”, per Genesis 1:16c). In fact, Luke 8:27-31 shows that even fallen angels fear torment and suffering, and Jesus permitted those particular demons to possess some pigs and drown them in verses 32-33. In light of all this, why would we expect animals to be exempted from these things when nothing else in all creation (sentient or non-sentient) is?
So there you have it: a straightforward justification for why animals suffer (gratuitously or otherwise) in a world initially created by an omnibenevolent God (but subsequently cursed by man’s sin).
Not only was the logic simple and straightforward enough for me to explain it in just one paragraph, but also note that I started off by exposing the ruse in his “I don’t believe in the Fall of Man” rebuttal, giving me the opportunity to expound the Biblical position (with the Fall of Man as a premise) and show that it’s coherent after all. The fact that none of the Christians in the debate could do this is just another demonstration of a point that I’ve been driving home for two decades now: these kinds of tough questions do have solid Biblical answers; but once you forfeit the straightforward understanding of the opening chapters of Genesis, the answers completely fall apart. Skeptics have understood this and used it to their advantage for over 200 years, just as Alex did here; the Christians in this debate fell for it, hook-line-and-sinker.
And just like the old-earth geologists who gave the skeptics their first dose of “intellectual fulfillment”1 200 years ago, Alex is relying on the assumption of uniformitarianism: that what we see in the present is representative of how (and how quickly) things always operated in the past. But in doing so, they’re ignoring a basic tenet of forensics (which is a historical science, the realm in which the creation-evolution debate operates): anyone who’s watched a detective show would know that the significance of a piece of evidence can drastically change in light of eyewitness testimony. In this case, uniformitarianists are ignoring the eyewitness testimony of the Bible. In fact, the founders of uniformitarian geology were deliberately doing so: Charles Lyell, arguably the biggest public proponent of uniformitarian geology in the early 19th century, mentioned in a letter to Poulett Scrope, who was about to review the first volume of Lyell’s watershed work “Principles of Geology”, that he hoped Scrope’s review, which would be published in a literary & political periodical called the Quarterly Review (intended to counter the Edinburgh Review’s influence on public opinion, no less; do not underestimate the sway the Quarterly Review held in the 19th century!), would be “what will free the science from Moses”.
Moreover, God still upholds the universe benevolently enough for us to catch glimpses of what He wanted for us all along. I’ve seen someone point out (I’m having trouble recollecting who) that God could’ve arranged the universe to make our situation even more miserable. He could’ve made all food taste bland, He could’ve made it painful for even a perfectly healthy person to eat anything, etc. If these things and more were the case, we could very easily conclude that our creator isn’t loving at all! The fact that there’s still some good in this creation not only tells us that God is loving and benevolent (so much for that “Evil God Hypothesis” Alex brings up during the debate, which aims to show that such arguments are arbitrary!), but it helps us look forward to the time when the Curse will be removed. I’m reminded of the fact that the Grand Canyon was carved from the waters of the Flood retreating off of the American continent; yet my late uncle (who was an agnostic, by the way) once told me, “I’ve been to 14 countries, and the Grand Canyon is the only thing I’ve seen that took my breath away.” Given how beautiful our world still is after it’s been devastated, how much more beautiful must it have been in pristine condition–and by implication, how much more beautiful will it be once it’s restored?
My Take On Animal Death And Predation Before, During, And After The Curse
Now, why do I call Alex’s take on animal suffering “ironically reassuring”? Because in that earlier video Osborne showed the thumbnail for, Alex actually brought up some things that I considered while writing the forementioned discussion in Chapter 16 of my upcoming book, but couldn’t really squeeze into it without wrecking my meticulous formatting. So now that I have a blog that doesn’t have such restrictions, I’d like to address these points a little more fully here. I’ll give you the background to appreciate where I’m going with this by giving you the discussion from Chapter 16 of my upcoming book, Footnotes and all.
Speaking of spiritual growth, I’ve heard it said that if you’re studying the Bible properly, it should make you feel uncomfortable sometimes. This tends to happen to me when I come across a passage pertaining to a sin I’m struggling with at the time, just like it should for everyone else. But in my case, this can also happen when an apologetics argument I’ve grown so used to utilizing with good results is exposed as faulty upon closer inspection. This rarely happens with me anymore because I’m generally aware of so many alternative arguments that can be utilized to prove the same point, that I can afford to ditch the ones that are trash. But once in a blue moon, I do struggle with letting some go. For example, early on when typing Appendix A of this work, I presented the following pair of arguments against compromising evangelical positions:
If death was around before Adam sinned, then a legion of theological problems arise later on in the Bible. I’ll only focus on two of them here. First (and arguably most importantly), the Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23c KJV) “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive… The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 26 KJV) These passages indicate that death is an intrusion into the universe that entered it as a result of Adam’s sin, and Jesus died to save us from the eternal consequences of death and make it possible for us to live in a deathless world in the future. But if death has always been a part of the universe, even before Adam sinned, then how can death be considered an intrusion into the universe that resulted from Adam’s sin? What was the point of Jesus’ sacrifice? Second, it’s quite clear from reading the opening and closing chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 21-22) that the universe will be restored to the level of perfection it had when it was originally created. So if the Old Heavens and Old Earth (the current universe) were created with death, then wouldn’t that mean there will be death in the New Heavens and New Earth as well? If death existed before Adam, the ideas of salvation and redemption make absolutely no sense. Compromising evangelicals directly undermine the very gospel message they’re supposed to preach to others (Mark 16:15)!
However, it was brought to my attention in October of 2023 that these arguments can only be legitimately applied to human death, in light of another passage that’s often used when making these arguments, Romans 5. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that [literally “men, on the basis that“; epi with a dative-case pronoun] all have sinned” (Romans 5:12 KJV, emphases added). The claim, as it pertains to this argument against compromising evangelicals, is that the phrase “sin entered into the world, and death by sin” implies that neither humans nor animals were susceptible to death until Adam sinned. However, just a few sentences later, Paul made it clear that he was talking about sin and death for humans specifically:
(…But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:15-19 KJV, emphases added)
Animals are wholly incapable of sin, so they obviously aren’t under consideration in this passage. In fact, this interpretation fully comports with another (valid) argument Biblical creationists use against the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe: Jesus became human in order to save sinful humans (Hebrews 2:9-11,14-18). So in order to save sinful Klingons, Jesus would’ve had to become a Klingon; to save sinful Ewoks, Jesus would’ve had to become an Ewok; and so on and so forth. So the fact that Jesus became a human and no other kind of creature (and indeed, is still human to this day) implies that humans are the only organic creatures that have sins in need of forgiveness!
You might claim this logic doesn’t work because fallen angels will be destroyed at the end of the Millennial Kingdom for their sins, but the crucial distinction between humans and angels on this front is clarified among the verses I just cited from Hebrews: angels (fallen or otherwise) don’t have flesh and blood, and certainly aren’t organic creatures.
Seeing then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death — that is, the devil — and might deliver those, whoever, with [literally, “those, as many as by“] fear of death, throughout all their life, were subjects of bondage, for, doubtless, of messengers it [fear of death] doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold772 (Hebrews 2:14-16 YLT, emphases added)
Also note that the verbs for “lay(eth) hold” are in the present tense. Death is an ongoing fear for humans (however strong or weak that fear may be in the moment; as good as we may get at ignoring this fear, death can still happen at any time), but not for angels. Satan (and undoubtedly, every other individual demon by now) knows when he’s going to perish (thanks to the doctrine of chiliasm, which I’ll discuss in Appendix D), but no individual human knows when they will. As a result, demons can do their thing unhindered by fear of death, because they know they’ll perish no sooner than the time God has decided for Satan himself. In contrast, every living human has the potential to die at any time before the first resurrection; this basic fact about life and death, even when crammed away at the backs of our minds, influences how we live our lives in a way demons don’t have to deal with themselves — and there’s no doubt the demons take advantage of this as much as they can.
But as far as we can tell, the potential to live forever is something animals simply don’t think about. As image-bearers of an eternal God, humans (unlike animals) have considerations about eternity. This is circumstantial evidence that God didn’t necessarily intend for animals to live for eternity. More solid support for this idea can be found in the opening chapters of Genesis, if you pay careful attention (bear in mind that the words for “earth” in these passages773 primarily meant “land” or “ground”):
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [which meant “make replete” (i.e., “fill to completion”) in archaic English] the earth [or “land”], and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth [or “ground”].
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth [or “land”], and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat [food in general, in archaic English]. And to every beast of the earth [or “land”], and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life [literally, “wherein is a soul that is alive”], I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.…
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground [Hebrew ‘adamah, meaning “soil” or “dirt” — see page 43 back in Chapter 4; Greek gē, the same word for “earth” in the LXX of the verses just quoted] made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst [properly, “middle”] of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.…
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:…
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also [or “again”, or “more”] of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground [Hebrew ‘adamah, Greek gē] from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 1:28-30; 2:8-10; 3:14,22-24 KJV, underlining and emphases added)
For the longest time, I never noticed that sea creatures are mentioned in Genesis 1:28, but not in 1:30 or 3:14! Evidently, sea creatures weren’t originally intended to be vegetarian like humans or land-dwelling and/or flying animals were (which would make sense since marine ecosystems are far more dependent on carnivory than terrestrial ones, given how scarce vegetation sources are in the oceans; then again, that assumes this was also the case in the pre-Flood ocean). I can’t remember seeing any occasion where a Biblical creationist has brought up this point, probably because they’re scared of its implications for their preconceived notions about death before the Fall and aren’t ready to relinquish this argument against compromising evangelical views that has come to be perceived as a kind of “slam-dunk”. However, after thinking it over for about a week, I came to the conclusion that the theological implications aren’t really as drastic as the typical creationist might think.
For example, they can still cogently argue that land-dwelling and/or flying animals (note the phrase “wherein is a soul that is alive” and recall the Biblical definition of “living creature” I laid out in Chapter 6) were vegetarian before the Fall (after all, creatures that aren’t living souls — e.g., bacteria — would’ve still been able to “eat” sea creatures that died in order to decompose them and make room for more sea creatures, if any sea creatures did somehow “die of old age” before Adam sinned) — which still poses a significant problem for Old-Earthers who accept the fossil record as pre-dating Adam, since we have plenty of fossil evidence for land animals eating each other in the geologic column!774 Also, while it’s safe to assume that the extinction and genetic entropy that all creatures are susceptible to now wouldn’t have applied to sea creatures before the Curse (just as they wouldn’t have for any other creatures), the absence of sea creatures in Genesis 3:14 would merely imply that land creatures would bear the brunt of the Curse’s effects (e.g., being subject to predation and death when they weren’t before).
Genesis 3:22-24 makes it clear that there were no trees of life outside the Garden of Eden, let alone on any shores of the pre-Flood ocean (Genesis 1:9). While Genesis 2 mentions that there was a river that watered the Garden of Eden (presumably including the tree of life), we have no guarantee that the tree of life would’ve been close enough to said river for its fruit or leaves to fall off and make their way down any of the 4 rivers branching off from it to the pre-Flood ocean for sea creatures to eat them — and that’s assuming the pre-Flood hydrologic cycle was similar enough to the modern one for the rivers to make it all the way to the ocean, and that no land animals ate them before they made it to the ocean! Quite simply, any model involving pre-Flood sea creatures having access to fruit or leaves from the tree of life (the only thing mentioned in Scripture as a means for organic creatures to undo aging and live indefinitely) is going to require some sketchy assumptions. In any case, the cherubim and flaming sword would’ve ensured that any animals still in the Garden after Adam & Eve’s banishment couldn’t have accessed the tree of life — regardless of what type of animals they were!
So, let’s address the strongest Biblical objection remaining against this possibility that some living creatures were eating other living creatures before the Fall: How would a creation where this is the case qualify as “very good”? For the same reason the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was “good” (as discussed back in Chapter 6): because it served a purpose. This predator-prey dynamic enabled God’s creation to sustain itself, by preventing the oceans from eventually becoming glutted with creatures to the point where it was no longer good! The only other relevant question I can think of is “Did any animals eaten by other animals suffer before the Fall?” As far as I’m aware (although I could be overlooking something), the Bible doesn’t answer this question. However, it’s safe to assume that since the New Heavens & New Earth will be Curse-free, suffering will operate the same as it did before Adam sinned. And like it or not, Ezekiel’s description of the Messiah’s Kingdom and its temple makes it over-abundantly clear that some animals will be killed and consumed by humans in the New Heavens & New Earth:
And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.… And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice. And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering.…
Then said he unto me, The north chambers and the south chambers, which are before the separate place, they be holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy.…
And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish. And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD. Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish. Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.…
And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.… But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD:… And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.… They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.…
This is the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of barley: Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil, ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is an homer of ten baths; for ten baths are an homer: And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD. All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel. And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary: And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.
In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering. And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering. And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.
In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.…
And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate: then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening.… And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish. And the meat offering shall be an ephah for a ram, and the meat offering for the lambs as he shall be able to give, and an hin of oil to an ephah. And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish, and six lambs, and a ram: they shall be without blemish. And he shall prepare a meat offering, an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and for the lambs according as his hand shall attain unto, and an hin of oil to an ephah.…
Thou shalt daily prepare a burnt offering unto the LORD of a lamb of the first year without blemish: thou shalt prepare it every morning. And thou shalt prepare a meat offering for it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and the third part of an hin of oil, to temper with the fine flour; a meat offering continually by a perpetual ordinance unto the LORD. Thus shall they prepare the lamb, and the meat offering, and the oil, every morning for a continual burnt offering.…
Then said he unto me, This is the place where the priests shall boil the trespass offering and the sin offering, where they shall bake the meat offering; that they bear them not out into the utter court, to sanctify the people. (Ezekiel 40:39,42-43; 42:13; 43:18-27; 44:10-11,15,27,29; 45:13-25; 46:2,4-7,13-15,20 KJV, emphases added)
Fish even come in for a special mention:
Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many. (Ezekiel 47:8-10 KJV, emphasis added)
The sheer amount of details in Ezekiel 40-48 (go ahead and read it; I left out a lot!) render it impossible that these descriptions were merely symbolic. And lest one suggest that this was referring to the Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period, Ezekiel finishes off his description by letting us know the God of Israel would dwell at the Jerusalem he was describing for the rest of eternity: “and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.” (Ezekiel 48:35c KJV) Also note the lack of instructions regarding the Day of Atonement, implying that it won’t be observed in the days of this temple; this shows that the sacrifices here aren’t being made under the Mosaic Covenant!
So if all else fails, after Jesus returns, we can just scientifically investigate whether the fish caught by those fishers suffer when they die. (I’ll explain in Appendix C that conducting science is a part of the Dominion Mandate, which we’ll finally be able to fulfill to our full potential in the New Heavens & New Earth!) It’ll be safe to assume the answer we acquire at that future time will be the same as it would’ve been before the Curse. Unless Jesus lets us know otherwise, of course.
In the meantime, creation scientists really ought to think about what I’ve said here. As I’ll explain in Appendix B, one reason creation science has been exploding with new models, insights, and explanations over the last several decades while evolutionary research has been comparatively stagnant is because creationists are willing to investigate ideas that evolutionists don’t even consider due to their worldview blinding them to those possibilities. So I’d like to conclude this discussion by warning creation scientists not to fall into that same trap by building their models around sacred cows that ultimately have no Scriptural basis. The Biblical passages I’ve gone over for the last 6 pages are helpful for correcting our preconceived notions about the extent to which death was in operation before the Fall, and for avoiding the use of arguments that are ultimately rooted in faulty exegesis.
772 Verse 16 trips up most English translators, undoubtedly due to the level of nuance involved in interpreting the verb for “lay(eth) hold”, ἐπιλαμβάνεται, which is the present, middle, indicative, 3rd-person, singular form of ἐπιλαμβάνομαι (epilambanomai, pronounced ep-ee-lahm-BAHN-o-mai; Strong’s Number G1949), meaning to “take hold” or “seize”. The renderings seen in most English translations, “give help to”, “help”, “is concerned with”, etc., won’t work, since they’d require the verb to be in the active voice (it’s in the middle voice) and for “messengers” & “seed” to be in the dative case, implying “to” (they’re in the genitive case, implying “of”). The KJV rendering “took on him[self] the nature of” (used in a handful of other translations) won’t work, since that would require the verb to be aorist indicative to indicate a past action (it’s present indicative, indicating a present and continuous action). Young was on the right track by taking the subject of the verb to be “fear of death” (from verse 15), instead of “he [Jesus]” (from verse 14), as suggested by his use of “it” rather than “he” in verse 16 — every translation of this verse on Bible Gateway (Hebrews 2:16 <www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%202:16> Bible Gateway. Accessed October 20, 2023.) except Young’s Literal Translation takes “he” (Jesus) as the subject of this verb; but Young could’ve made the middle voice of the verb a bit more explicit. Rendering these two instances of ἐπιλαμβάνεται as “seize(s) to itself” satisfies all the grammatical requirements. Ultimately, the sense of verse 16 is as follows: fear of death doesn’t seize angels to itself, but that fear does seize the children of Abraham to itself.
773 Hebrew אֶרֶץ (‘erets; Strong’s Number H776); Greek γῆ (gē; Strong’s Number G1093).
774 For a small handful of examples of fossil evidence of carnivory and even cannibalism on the part of Tyrannosaurus rex specifically, see the following article and sources cited therein: Clarey, T. Tyrannosaurus rex: Scavenger or Predator? Acts & Facts. 42(11):13. Available at <www.icr.org/article/tyrannosaurus-rex-scavenger-or-predator>.
{HIDMF, p. 486-493. Italics, boldface, underlining, and content in brackets in original.}
Oh, and since the distinction between which creatures are versus aren’t “living souls” (and thus, which ones can “die” in a sense relevant to this discussion) is crucial to understanding the foregoing, I conclude in Chapter 6 that “living souls” are “members of kinds that have blood and can move voluntarily in at least one stage of development” {Ibid. p. 109. Italics in original.}.
As you may have noticed, there were a few questions I glossed over in that discussion: (1) how the land wouldn’t have become glutted with animals if Adam hadn’t sinned (after all, the creation had to be set up in a way that accounted for that possibility, even though it wasn’t realized!), (2) whether sea creatures eaten by other sea creatures before the Fall suffered while dying, and (3) how the animals being sacrificed in the New Heavens & New Earth won’t qualify as “unnecessary” bloodshed. I’ve already published a discussion regarding the third here, but have an additional point or two to bring out about it here. But the ironic thing is that Alex’s video on “Christianity’s Biggest Problem” jogged my memory on some viable responses I’ve seen to the first two points!
The first point is helped by Alex, who said the following {jump to the 8:55 mark}:
And besides, granting that God does need to balance an ecosystem, predation is not the only way to do it. God could have, for example, limited the number of times an animal can reproduce, as a way of preventing overpopulation. A form of cosmic contraception. [Brief pause] There’s definitely a joke about a condom brand in there, somewhere.
(I just couldn’t resist retaining that last part.) But whether Alex knows it or not, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris suggested essentially this same possibility in a study note for Genesis 3:18:
These systems and processes [the malevolent biological structures and mechanisms resulting from the Curse] now maintain a balance of nature and so are indirectly beneficial in maintaining life on a cursed earth, even though individual organisms all eventually die. Had the Fall and Curse not taken place, populations would probably have eventually been stabilized at optimum values by divine constraints on the reproductive process. With God’s personal presence withdrawn for a time, however, it is more salutary to maintain order by these indirect constraints associated with the Curse, adding still further to the testimony that the world is now travailing in pain, awaiting its coming Redeemer. {Boldface mine.}
The ecosystem very well could’ve functioned that way before the Curse went into effect. And the fact that an atheist is willing to concede the acceptability of this is very reassuring!
Regarding the second point, Alex hints at what I expect the results to be of that “scientific investigation” in the New Heavens & New Earth {jump to the 9:51 mark}:
I mean, even if predation really is the only way to stabilize an ecosystem, there’s still absolutely no reason why it would need to be so painful and so gruesome. God could provide for these animals an instant death, or at least one that’s less painful. But He doesn’t. He allows that zebra to suffer for minutes, whilst its windpipe is caught in the jaws of a lion. Just imagine for a moment what it must feel like to be that zebra. None of this is necessary for ecosystem stability, if you truly are the omnipotent creator of natural laws. {Emphases his.}
While the zebra being eaten by a lion wasn’t a thing in the pre-Fall world (Genesis 1:30), and will no longer be a thing in the New Heavens & New Earth (Isaiah 11:7, 65:25), this would still be pertinent for sea creatures at both points, in light of the above excerpt from my book. I suspect that the sea creatures eaten by other sea creatures died (and will die) instantly and painlessly. And again, we just saw Morris explain that God allows the excessive gruesomeness of animal suffering as an object lesson to remind us that this world is messed up; it wasn’t meant to be like this. It’s been Cursed, and we should be looking forward to the day when that Curse will be removed.
Which brings me to the third point: would the animals being offered as described in Ezekiel 40-48 suffer and die unnecessarily? Well, remember that Alex clarified that by “unnecessary”, he means “unjustified”. And if there’s a good reason for such sacrifices to be done, then they are justified, by definition. Again, I’ve already given a fuller Biblical exposition of the purpose of animal sacrifices; but for now, I’ll give you a condensed version: animal sacrifices were never intended to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4); rather, they were meant to remind those offering them of the seriousness of their own sins (verse 3) and point to the sacrifice that could take away sins (Jesus’ death on the cross). Whether the latter points forward or backward in time from when the sacrifice is being offered (i.e., whether it’s being offered before or after Jesus’ crucifixion), the purpose is the same. And while the faithful will be perfected upon their resurrection and/or rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51-54), yet incapable of reproduction (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25), there are plenty of Biblical passages implying that some people in still-mortal bodies capable of reproduction will be permitted to enter Christ’s Kingdom (Isaiah 11:8, 65:20; Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 14:15-24), despite still being in a state of sinfulness (Matthew 22:11-13; Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15, cf. Psalm 2:9 LXX)–generally because they gave aid to the faithful during the Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-40) and/or were ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own. And with the Curse being a thing of the past, these people will no longer experience the kinds of natural, tangible, cumulative, and/or long-term consequences for their sins that we presently experience for ours; so they’re going to need regular reminders of how serious sin is, especially as they produce new generations who never experienced the sin-Cursed world we live in now. The sacrifices described in the closing chapters of Ezekiel are for the sake of these people.
Especially pertinent to the present topic is the fact that the Bible never emphasizes the suffering of the animal being offered as an important feature of blood sacrifices–that is, whether the animal suffers or not is immaterial to whether God will accept the sacrifice; therefore, these sacrifices would be just as acceptable in the New Heavens & New Earth if the offered animals don’t suffer while dying, as they would be if they did suffer. Hence, God making death instant and painless for these animals would in no way diminish the legitimacy of the sacrifices.
Will there ever be a time when such sacrifices will cease? As far as I’m aware, the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach that those who are converted during the Millennium will be perfected at the end of it (thereby rendering such sacrifices unnecessary for the rest of eternity after the Millennium, since no sins will be happening at all anymore); but it doesn’t rule out the possibility, either. We’ll have to wait for additional divine revelation to pin down whether or not this will happen for sure, but Morris’ (and Alex’s) idea about God capping land animals’ reproductive abilities to fix their populations at values that would be optimal for the ecosystem as a whole would certainly be feasible if that does come to pass.
So, there you go: a Biblical stance on death and suffering for animals that’s consistently justified from cover-to-cover, and from the beginning to eternity future. Of course, if I’ve overlooked something, please let me know in the comments!
Now, bear in mind that you’ll never see a response this satisfactory from organizations like Answers in Genesis, because they refuse to take an official position on eschatology (aside from denying full preterism, due to its denial of Jesus’ future return), and therefore can’t use eschatological details as premises without abandoning that commitment. One thing I learned while writing Appendix D of my book is that chronology and eschatology are more important to forming a consistent understanding of the Bible than most apologetics organizations let on. As such, I think they’re depriving themselves (or at least, their readers) by not drawing lines in the sand in these areas (or at least giving ideas for what to look into to facilitate one’s own analysis). Even if they end up presenting or redirecting to the wrong views, at least the points of conflict (even only apparent ones) said views create with the rest of Scripture will wind up better documented and actually presented to their readers, and the issues and nuances that Bible students must reconsider to get to the truth will become more clear.
Indeed, as hinted at near the start of this post, robinfeatherhead pointed out that Osborne doesn’t actually deal with Alex’s core argument here. In contrast, I was able to address his core argument and its auxiliary arguments directly and consistently because I was willing to take a hard stance on eschatology that gave me rigorous Biblical premises to work with–in this case, taking Biblical statements about animals after Jesus’ return at face value to address “what ifs” about the post-Fall (and by implication, pre-Fall) world. On the other hand, those who try to allegorize away such passages even when the context suggests they were meant literally (e.g., amillennialists) wind up getting stuck at some point when trying to address Alex’s arguments; that ought to be a red flag that they should reconsider something.
Conclusion
Finally, I’d like to express some hope for Alex. He has explained that he was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, had his faith shaken when he asked basic questions about it, and was later introduced to old-earth evolutionary ideas. Those who’ve read my recollections on this blog {scroll to “Insights From A Local”} of attending CCD and attending St. Louise De Marillac Catholic Church (or who go on to read Chapter 1 of my upcoming book) will recognize the similarity in our backgrounds–even down to the preference for nonfiction over fiction. Our backgrounds sharply diverged in adolescence: my youth minister, Rich Wallick, introduced me to Biblical apologetics through Ham, Wieland, and Sarfati when I was 12; Alex was introduced to “Hitchens, Harris[,] and Dawkins in [his] early teens”. In other words, I received answers to my sincere questions about the Bible, but he didn’t. I went on to devour every apologetics resource I could find (to the point where I rarely come across subject matter I’m not familiar with anymore), and for the last handful of years have been integrating it all into a thoroughly consistent belief system (in contrast to virtually all denominations in Christendom), ever refining it as more insight becomes available. In contrast, Alex wrote at the page linked to at the start of this paragraph that: “I suppose that my abandonment of the pernicious and alarmingly peremptory faith that plagued my upbringing is attributable to two factors: my stern arrogance against the priests and so called ‘educators’ who attempted to justify my helpless indoctrination into their cult, and my immediate family’s less than steadfast religiosity.” He went on to study philosophy and theology, so he’s well-versed in the flaws with “official” religious views; nonetheless, he still seems to be sincerely searching for the truth. In fact, I wholeheartedly sympathize with his remarks about “arrogance against the priests and so called ‘educators’” and “the vile dogma and tenacious authoritarianism which is routinely masked from the average church-goer due to the relentless efforts of scrupulous religious institutions.” I’ve become more vocal against the latter myself in recent years, because it betrays an unwillingness to help sincere questioners by meeting them where they’re at (and often an unwillingness for respondents to refine their views to the point where they can answer such questions); as for the former, I’ve often said that I trust the Bible more than any church that preaches it–it took me years to find a church that was solid enough for me to consider it a “home church”.
In fact, Alex has made statements indicating that he’s still open-minded enough to not completely rule out converting to a religion in the future. For instance, watch this video from the 2:43 to 5:16 marks, paying careful attention starting at 4:38. I think his mention at 4:58 of “the kind of Christianity that I understand” and his mention at 5:14 of “a different kind of Christianity or a different kind of God” are especially insightful, since anyone familiar with what I’m teaching knows that what most of Christendom teaches today actually isn’t what the Bible teaches. Rather, people tend to interpret Scripture in light of their own preconceived notions (particularly assumptions they haven’t thought through, whether imposed on them by instructors, denominations, society, or what have you), rather than letting the Bible interpret itself and seeing where that leads them. In fact, since Alex was raised Catholic, odds are he was baptized before he was old enough to understand the Gospel message; if so, then his baptism isn’t legitimate, he was never really saved, and so he hasn’t really fallen away (you can’t “fall away” from a position you were never in!). I suspect this is why he’s willing to be so much more gracious in his dialogue with believers than his more famous peers: salvation is still on the table for him, so he’s not in a state of full-on hardheartedness toward a God who’s truly left him to stew in his own hatred of Him (2 Peter 2:18-22).
So I invite Alex O’Connor to consider the worldview I present in my upcoming book, which I went out of my way to ensure is 100% contradiction-less from cover to cover. Perhaps he’ll discover Biblical Christianity to be robust enough to warrant further investigation. From one lifelong learner to another: feel free to reach out with your sincere questions.
- I’ve co-opted this phrase from a quote by Richard Dawkins regarding what Darwin did for skeptical biologists: “An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that Cod [sic] isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” {“The Blind Watchmaker”. Dawkins, Richard. 1986 (1996 edition). London, England: W. W. Norton & Company. 6. Italics in original. Boldface mine.} What Darwin did for Creation-deniers with biology, Lyell had done for Flood-deniers with geology 3 decades earlier. ↩︎