Is Animal Death Really Evil?

Introduction
Within Christian circles a large debate is taking place regarding the age of the earth. One of the contentions that young-earth creationists (YECs) promote is that millions of years of animal suffering and death before sin entered the world (The Fall) is incompatible with Christianity because animal death is evil and not compatible with God's declaration that the creation was "very good.". A while back I wrote a post explaining that too often man anthropomorphizes animals, and that is the source of our belief that all suffering of animals is evil. In that post I explain that what could ground the idea that the animals suffering (over millions of years before man came on the scene) was evil was if animals were moral beings (via being created in the Image of God). Since they are not moral beings, they cannot commit moral (evil) acts. Since they cannot commit morally evil acts, suffering of the animals as the result of other animals was and is not morally evil.

However, that is only part of the story. I did not speak much on natural evil or man's treatment of animals as moral or natural evil. Recently a commenter asked that I speak to these issues to help further show logical compatibility of my old-earth creation (OEC) view, with biblical Christianity.

Introduction

It is often understood that defending the faith is not just for the sake of evangelism, but it is also useful to strengthen the Christian's faith during the tough times of life. These tough times often cause doubt. But this reviewer has found that simply giving a logical answer is not always the way to help someone with doubt. The book Doubting: Growing Through The Uncertainties of Faith by Alister McGrath was recommended as a good resource on dealing with the other aspects of doubt that this reviewer was looking to be able to address. It is a shorter book at only 151 pages divided into eleven chapters. This review will provide a short chapter-by-chapter summary to introduce the reader to the content, then it will conclude with the reviewer's thoughts.

Chapter 1: Doubt: What It Is - And What It Isn't

McGrath begins by clearing up a common misconception about doubt: that it is synonymous with skepticism (disbelief of everything) and unbelief (not believing in God); rather it is distinct. Doubt is composed of two interacting characteristics of humanity. Man is sinful; which causes him to want to distance himself from God; and man is not omniscient, which appears to give him a valid reason to realize that sinful desire. Since Christians will struggle with sin until death or the return of Christ, the Christian life will be a constant struggle with doubt. However, that doubt should not be seen as something to be feared (because it is sourced in sin), but an opportunity to learn more about our Savior and Creator (because it is sourced in a lack of knowledge) that will bring us into a closer relationship to Him.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate- Introduction

Tonight Bill Nye and Ken Ham squared off on the topic "Is Creation a Viable Model for Origins In The Scientific Era?" Promoters of this debate have been promoting it as the "Debate of the Decade" and I had even heard the term "Scopes 2." Because I am a Christian and I disagree with Ken Ham's position on the age of the universe (I agree with Bill Nye, in that regard, but disagree with his worldview in general), it seems that I would be rooting for both or neither in the debate. Since I find that holding an incorrect view of reality (even within the confines of the correct general worldview) is damaging to defenses of the general worldview, I decided to watch this debate and offer my thoughts.

First, I want to state that I found that both participants were very respectful of one another so, it made the exchange easy to watch in that respect. What makes a debate more difficult to watch depends on the participants' ability to stay on topic and defend their contentions against critique. While I think that for the most part, they did stay on topic, there was a mix regarding their defense of particular parts of their contentions.