Re: ORIGINS:Creavolution and God's role

David Campbell (
Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:57:45 -0500

Disk Fischer responed to my comments...
>>The theological implications of non-human death are not agreed
>>upon-does the declaration in Gen. 1 that creation was "good" allow animals
>>to die?
>I think the timing proscribes the food chain as a necessary part of
>God's good creation.
I think the issue is whether it is a part of it, rather than a necessary
part of it. Is predation or scavenging "good?" There is some sort of ban
on these on the Ark (limited food supply!) and in Isaiah's prophecy of the
"peaceable kingdom", but I'm not sure they couldn't be a part of "good"

>>If we can decide what aspects of creation are
>>a result of fallenness, a minimum estimate of the timing of Satan's fall
>>(if it's in time) could be made.
>I would submit that Adam's fall was his failure to set the godly example
>that Christ set. The effect on mankind was deleterious due to the
>appointed leader being unable to handle the responsibility. I don't think
>the creation was impacted beyond a secondary effect. Sinful man pollutes,
>drives species into extinction, burns the rain forest, over fishes the
>oceans, etc. The "thorns and thistles" may have been outside the garden
>all along but not encountered until Adam left the confines.
Romans 8:22 sounds to me like a more general problem than just our impact
on the environment, though I don't know anything about nuances of the
original. We (all humans in God's image, whoever that is) could be unique
in having resposibility not to adversely affect our environment, though
every organism could be viewed as having some negative effect on other
organisms (competition for resources, if not more direct effects).

David Campbell