Animal Death?- A Response to AiG Critique of My Argument
by J.W. Wartick
I recently wrote a post called “A theological argument against young earth creationism.” In it, my stated claim was “YEC is morally impermissible…” Why? Because “on YEC, animals died because of Adam’s sin…” not because of anything they themselves did. This argument is intended to use the YEC assumption that animal death is an inherently bad thing against them. Let’s outline the argument:
1. If animals did not die before the fall, then their death must be the result of sin.
2. Animals are incapable of sinning (they are not morally responsible agents)
3. Therefore, animal death must be the result of a morally culpable agent’s sin.
The argument as it stands contains a few assumptions which I’ve found in YEC literature. 1) Animals did not die before the fall; 2) Death is inherently a bad thing; 3) all physical death is the result of sin. Now a denial of these assumptions can undermine my argument; I grant that. My point is that if one holds to these three assumptions, my argument shows that YEC is morally impermissible.
Now, Answers in Genesis has provided a critique of my argument, and I must say that I’m very appreciative of their interaction on this important topic. Elizabeth Mitchell wrote the entry, check out her critique, in its entirety, here (under the “And don’t miss…” section). Let me examine the criticism below. (I recommend reading my entire post prior to this one in order to have proper interaction with it.)
First, Mitchell wrote, that my post “…attempts to show young earth creationism is wrong by demonstrating death documented in the fossil record preceded human sin and was unrelated to it.”
I admit I was a bit befuddled when I read this, because nowhere in my post did I try to “demonstrate death document in the fossil record preceded human sin…” I’m not sure where this claim was made in my original post. I don’t mention the fossil record anywhere in the original post and so I’m a bit concerned by this apparent misreading of my article.
Then, she wrote, “He cites no Scripture…” Indeed, I did not cite a single Scripture passage. However, the argument is directly based upon the assertions that some YECs make. But what kind of rebuttal is it to say “He cites no Scripture…” anyway? An argument must be dealt with whether it has Bible passages in it or not…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
Animal Death?- A Response to AiG Critique of My Argument -Always Have a Reason
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES:
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
I think AIG’s point about the lack of scriptural reference was to point out the unguided conclusion of Wartick’s reasoning, for quite many things can be assumed by reason alone.
I also think the conclusions based on scripture and observation are this:
Creatures (including humans) on earth can and do suffer pain and death not merely by their own sin, but also by the sin of those to whom they are subjects, as in the children of Adam, and as in the plants and animals. And, yes, this law of death was immediately demonstrated by God himself in the first slaughter of animals, and in millennia of prescribed slaughter. Genesis also states quite plainly that that all these animals and people were originally plant eaters, with no need for any to kill or any to die.
Again, the prescribed order of subjugation is this: animals to people, people to God.
Keep also in mind that the idea that creatures suffer pain and death is not necessarily punishment of the sin of those that suffer, for Christ did not sin. Nevertheless, the suffering of pain and death are consistently presented as consequences of sin. In fact, I might argue that what what we observe as suffering on earth is not THE punishment, but the foreshadowing of the punishment we deserve.
In any case, AIG is not making up the rules. But to say that animals might as well have been dying before the fall as they now die after the fall is scripturally baseless.
I think AIG is making good scriptural points, and that they are frequently able to back these up with observation.