RE: Death to Theistic Evolution?

lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU
Thu, 16 May 1996 10:13:30 -0400 (EDT)

Although I'd _rather_ quote theologians on the subject of
death-before-the-fall, Michael McCulloch's questions force me to do a
little speculating of my own. (I'm sure my ideas aren't original, but I
don't have any references so I wouldn't know to whom to attribute them.)

Michael asked:

> Evolution suggests death emerged as organisms which concentrated more on
> reproductive capacity than life span gained the advantage. Seems to me that
> death is much less a grandiose design than it is a pure survival strategy.
>
> Why would God have chosen the current paradigm for higher life over other
> alternatives? And what is the point of a New Heaven and New Earth if the
> current state of the universe is what was originally intended -- other
> than the state of mankind?

Interesting suggestion. Suppose it was possible, in this creation, for
higher life to be immortal, capable of repairing any injury, capable of
slow change so that it didn't remain "stagnant," and stopped reproducing
after it had filled available space. IF that were possible, why instead
chose a paradigm with death? The following paragraph is very speculative,
but it may be useful nonetheless.

How many immortal animals and/or humans could the earth hold? Without
death, limited space is rapidly filled; death allows many more individuals
to exist in a limited space. Perhaps one of the purposes of this creation
is to "create souls" -- a process in which God graciously allows us to
participate biologically and socially -- to populate the New Creation,
where perhaps "space" is not a limitation for immortal creatures. The New
Heaven and New Earth are described as superior to even the idyllic Garden
of Eden, because God's presence there obviates the need for a sun and a
moon. All this suggests to me (again, more speculation) that, even if
humanity had not sinned and had attained (or retained) physical
immortality, individuals would eventually have been "caught up into
heaven" (as Enoch and Elijah were) to move on to a superior existence and
to make room on this earth for new individuals. But if this would have
been the fate of sinless humans anyway, could not physical death also have
been the transition? ("The sting of death is sin.") Since the fall has
occurred, the new Heaven and New Earth are now also the place were the
effects of sin are wiped out.

-----------------

> I personally find this new (to me) "death theology" less than appealing.

Yes, I agree that it is not immediately appealing. However, the idea that
there was no animal death until AFTER the fall requires (at least) one of
these three very unappealing corolaries:

1) God created the world recently, but with the appearance of great age
everywhere (including the appearance of death-before-the-fall in the
fossil record).

or

2) The earth is old; animal death before humans existed was either due to
the fall of Satan, or applied retroactively (atemporaly) due to humanity's
fall. (This hypothesis is entirely extra-scriptural.)

or

3) The earth is young, there was no animal death before the fall, and
humanity's collective God-given abilities to investigate and plainly
interpret God's creation are pretty near worthless.

These unappealing alternatives should give one reason to at least
reconsider the place of physical death in creation.

-----------------------

> Also, please fit the following into this theology:
>
> "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but
> by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself
> will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the
> glorious freedom of the children of God."
> Romans 8:20-21

That's an excellent question.

Sinful humanity has botched the job of taking care of the earth. We abuse
and despoil it. Whatever good things God had in mind for humanity to do
for creation -- in our role of "dominion" -- we cannot achieve in our
sinful state.

I could speculate further. Humanity is the voice of this world, its
appointed head. All of this world is in some sense represented by
humanity. Its fate (suffering or glory) is tied to humanity's --- whether
we bring it about ourselves through our God-given abilities, or whether
God ordains it in response to our choices. When humanity sinned, we lost
our good relationship with God in this life, and we lost our hope for
resurrection in the new creation (until they were restored by Christ).
Now, creation's "hopes for restoration" are represented by the children of
God won through Christ.

Does anyone know how the books quoted by Steve Jones answer this question?

Clark R.E.D. "The Universe: Plan or Accident?", Third edition, 1961,
Paternoster, London.

Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution", 1987,
Paternoster.

Hayward A., "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from
Science and the Bible", 1995, Bethany House Publishers.

Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London.

----------------------------------

I have a question for you to consider. Which animals should have been
immune to death before the fall? Only multi-celled? Only those with
nerve cells? Only those with brains? Only vertebrates? Only mammals?
Do you have any scriptural reason for where you make the cut-off?

Peace in Christ,

Loren Haarsma