Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Related claims 6 See Also 7 Acknowledgments

Claim

Evolution implies billions of years of animals suffering and dying before human beings appeared. This implies that God is not really a God of mercy and grace, because the suffering was not necessary to create human beings for fellowship with Himself. This, in turn, implies that the loving God of the Bible does not exist.

Source

• Morris, Henry M., 2000 (June). The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138: a-c. [1]
• Morris, Henry M., 1998 (Apr.). The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution. Back to Genesis 112: a. [2]

Responses

1. God has allowed uncounted billions of life-forms -- humans and animals alike -- to suffer and die in the years after He created Adam. If the benevolence of God is consistent with this post-Adamic carnage, why would God's benevolence not be consistent with any pre-Adamic carnage which might have occured?
2. And how exactly does the destruction of all terrestrial life (animals, plants, people, or otherwise) that were not allowed onto the Ark imply a merciful God?
3. This assumes that physical death is morally wrong. While physical death is an uncomfortable concept, it may be an intended part of creation. Remember, God created humanity with a spiritual component, so it's not clear at all that we necessarily were created to be physically immortal.
4. If a theory does not fit the facts, it is not the facts that need to be adjusted.
5. The Creationists assert that this "death and suffering" was not necessary. This contradicts the well-supported concept of selection pressure, and there is no evidence cited to discredit it.
6. This claim, like many others, assumes the existence of god, which is a mighty assumption indeed.
7. If animals did not die, then what did animals such as vultures, sharks, lions, and snakes eat? If not animals, then why are they so well-adapted to eating meat? Why would their diets have changed after the Fall?
8. If no animals died, they would eventually overpopulate the planet unless they stopped reproducing. Why would they be given the ability to reproduce then, if God could simply start off with the right amount that could all live forever in the first place?
9. The Creationists who make this claim seem to forget about the many instances in the Bible where God demands the slaughter of the various enemies of the Israelites, down to the last man, woman, child and beast.
10. Yes. So what?
11. Also there were no animals before 600-700Ma. The statement "animals dying for billons of years" is wrong.
12. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Appeal to Consequences (if evolution is true, God is not as one wants him to be)
• Inconsistency (unmercifulness afterwards does not disturb the arguer)

Related claims

• If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning
• Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption
• Animals are not moral, esthetic, idealistic, or religious
• Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
• God would have pronounced death and suffering very good
• Christ's death was unjust if physical death wasn't the penalty for sin
• Animals ate plants before the Fall

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments