WAS THERE ANIMAL DEATH FROM THE BEGINNING AS NATURAL SELECTION CLAIMS?

My Letter to a Theistic Evolutionist who claims that animal death and the survival of the fittest (natural selection) had been part of God’s original creation:

“There are many indications that God had intended that there would be no animal death. For one thing, animals had been created as herbivores:

·       Genesis 1:29-31 (ESV) And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

It was never intended that God’s “very good” plan would require man or animals to eat other animals. Such death was inimical to God’s ultimate plan which would restore creation to its original deathless state (Acts 3:21):

·       Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 65:25)

Had the species been evolved through a Darwinian process of the survival of the fittest, the idea of the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21) to natural selection would have been a gross and unsatisfying promise. Instead, natural selection was never part of God’s original plan. Instead, animal death was introduced at the Fall:

·       Genesis 3:14  The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.”

As a result of the Fall, “all beasts of the field” would be under the curse for “all the days of [their] lives.” This suggests that the curse would also terminate their lives. This is something that Romans had also affirmed:

·       Romans 8:19-22 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected [by God] to futility, not willingly, but because of him [God] who subjected it, in hope [of something greater] that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption [including death] and obtain the freedom [from death and decay] of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

I understand that you don’t see things this way. Perhaps you need to reconsider how your evolutionary paradigm might have blinded you to what Scripture has been plainly communicating.”

SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS

Social justice might not be just at all but rather the denial of justice for certain groups of people, according to Clay Routledge, Quillette columnist and professor of psychology at North Dakota State University:

·       Though it might grant social and professional benefits to members of the elite liberal class, engaging in scholarship and activism that demonizes men, white people, or heterosexuals doesn’t make the world more just, nor does providing students with empirically-unsupported implicit-bias training and “toxic masculinity” workshops. These practices bake the seeds of prejudice and discrimination into educational experiences that are supposedly focused on fighting prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the use of divisive and hateful language in the name of social justice is a red flag. https://quillette.com/2018/09/14/social-justice-in-the-shadows/

Misguided social justice initiatives have also hurt the Black community and others they have touched. Walter E. Williams, professor of economics, George Mason University, does not think that the problems that the Black community are now experiencing are a product of slavery, Jim Crow, or even systemic racism, but of welfare programs:

• A major part of the solution should be the elimination of public and private policy that rewards inferiority and irresponsibility. Chief among the policies that reward inferiority and irresponsibility is the welfare state. When some people know that they can have children out of wedlock, drop out of school and refuse employment and suffer little consequence, one should not be surprised to see the growth of such behavior. The poverty rate among blacks is about 30 percent. It’s seen as politically correct to blame today’s poverty on racial discrimination, but that’s nonsense. Why? The poverty rate among black intact husband-and-wife families has been in the single digits for more than two decades.

According to Williams, “social justice” has even undermined largely black schools:

• Education is one of the ways out of poverty, but stupid political correctness stands in the way for many blacks. For example, a few years ago, a white Charleston, South Carolina, teacher frequently complained of black students calling her a white b—-, white m—–f—–, white c— and white ho. School officials told her that racially charged profanity was simply part of the students’ culture and that if she couldn’t handle it, she was in the wrong school.

Failing to hold students accountable for anti-social behavior corrupts the school and diminishes the possibility of obtaining a good education.

According to Williams, over-indulgent “social justice” policies have de-motivated blacks by holding them to lower standards:

• Many whites are ashamed and saddened by our history of slavery, Jim Crow and gross racial discrimination. As a result, they often hold blacks accountable to standards and conduct they would never accept from whites. A recent example is black students at colleges such as NYU, UC Berkeley, UCLA and Oberlin demanding racially segregated housing. Spineless college administrators have caved to their demands. These administrators would never even listen to a group of white students demanding white-only housing accommodations. These administrators and other guilt-ridden whites have one standard of conduct for whites and a lower standard for blacks.

Different standards according to race and sexuality divide and breed cynicism. White guilt and idealism hold blacks to a lower standard, approving their racial prejudices while penalizing whites for the same. This can only serve to further exclude blacks from white society.

Williams claims liberal policies have also made academic excellence more unattainable:

• Black people can be thankful that racist forms of double standards and public and private policies rewarding inferiority and irresponsibility were not broadly accepted during the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s. There would not have been the kind of intellectual excellence and spiritual courage that created the world’s most successful civil rights movement.

Instead of coming to grips with the negative impact of “social justice” policies, leftists have instead invented alternative explanations for black failure, including "white privilege" and "systemic racism." What happened to the ideal M.L. King strove to achieve - to judge, not by skin color, but by character?

Routledge knows something about legitimate social justice having been the son of missionaries who had devoted themselves to the needy:

·       My family lived in a part of the world plagued by mass poverty and disease. Here in the United States, I have seen up close the people in our communities who are truly suffering or unable to provide for themselves. And I realize that despite the fact that the Western world is becoming increasingly open-minded and tolerant, we are still sadly cursed with bigotry and hate. But I also know how to tell the difference between those working for a cause and those making a cause work for them. Beware of the false prophets of social justice.

These “prophets” have promoted a “justice” which divides. It is a system of racial and sexual preference under which all are not equal, where some are disenfranchised because of their color or gender. This system can only lead to further division and distrust.

While the justice system must be color blind, as individuals, the Routledge family was free, as we all should be, to show mercy to whomever.

FREEDOM AND PERFORMANCE-BASED WORTHINESS

Christianity is often referred to as “dirty-rotten-sinner religion,” because it requires us to see ourselves as sinners always in need of confession, repentance and forgiveness. But what if this religion accurately characterizes who we truly are? If we are unworthy sinners, perhaps it is necessary for us to understand this in order to make the appropriate readjustments, like the man who washes his clothing after he realizes that they are filthy.

Jesus had been invited to attend an elegant luncheon by a Pharisee. Hearing that He was there, a known sinner-woman courageously trespassed, fell down at Jesus’ feet, washed them with tears of gratefulness, dried them with her hair, and rubbed His feet with costly oil.

The fact that Jesus had allowed this disgraced and morally contaminated woman to touch Him convinced Jesus’ host that He couldn’t be a prophet. Aware of this, Jesus asked him, Which debtor would be more appreciative - the one forgiven a great debt or one forgiven a minor debt? Simon answered, The one forgiven the greater debt. Jesus then applied the lesson:

• "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—[as a result] she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." (Luke 7:44-48)

She overflowed with the love of gratefulness. The more we realize how unworthy we are of the love and forgiveness of our Lord, the more grateful we shall be and the more ready we will be to live according to His love. In contrast, the Pharisees believed that they were morally entitled and looked down on everyone else. As a result, they failed to see their need to be forgiven and reconciled to the God they claimed to serve.

Human society has anointed self-deception as a virtue. We are praised for believing in ourselves. Building a high self-esteem has become the mark of character which encourages us to feed on positive affirmations, whether true or not.

However, this is not a diet that will improve relationships. Instead, boasting and self-glorification divides people. It even separates us from God, who requires us to take a true inventory of our moral status.

If we offend a friend, the only way to be reconciled is to humbly confess our offense. Gifts and good deeds might help, but they fail to penetrate to the depths of the wound. We also offend God when we violate the moral principles He has wired within us. Consequently, we also violate and damage our own conscience, causing internal conflict, which no acts of virtue can rectify. They can only cover up the problem.

The sinner-woman was enabled to love God by recognizing how much she had been forgiven by Him. It also gave her the boldness to enter a home where she knew she wasn’t welcome.

When we know that we are loved by God, the opinions of society whither in comparison. She no longer needed to prove to the world that she was a “somebody.” To know that she was beloved and forgiven by God was enough.

How liberating it is to know that if God is for you. It doesn’t matter who is against you. The woman probably knew that she looked foolish in the eyes of the religious leadership but not in the eyes of Jesus, and this made all the difference.

Jesus had been overthrowing the worldview of the Pharisees, which assured them that they were the worthy ones, not this woman. They had worked hard to attain their righteous standing in God’s sight, and they weren’t ready to sacrifice their coveted standing before the dirty rotten sinner whose sins Jesus had just forgiven. Instead, they would have to connive to regain their standing, and the Cross seemed to be just the right place to accomplish this.

We all need to be a “somebody” and to feel that we are loved. However, if this depends upon our own virtue and performance, our heart will be like the mirror hanging on the wall, which tells us that there is always someone prettier or more popular. Perhaps it might even tell us that we aren’t pretty or morally entitled at all.

However, the woman had learned that her value didn’t depend upon her at all, but upon the One who loved and had forgiven her. She had learned a valuable lesson about freedom, a lesson that Jesus continues to teach us:

• So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

When we are free, through the love of Christ, from the concerns of what others think of us, we are truly free to face our failures and to be at peace with them.

THE LIGHT, TRUTH, AND THE CONDEMNATION

She told the group, “God is love. He is also omnipotent. To send any of his children to eternal hell, when he could have done otherwise, is eternal cruelty...Jesus is the ultimate love. The idea that he will condemn anyone goes against everything he taught.”

Does it? Jesus taught a parable about a rich man who refused to give the poor and sickly Lazarus even the crumbs from his table. Even the dogs treated him better. They at least licked his open sores.

Both died. Lazarus was escorted to a place of comfort, beside Abraham. The rich man found himself in a place of torment - Hades - where he cried out:

• “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.” (Luke 16:24)

He cried for mercy. However, he didn’t ask to be forgiven or to be reconciled to God so that he too would live in a place of joy. He didn’t even pray to God. God seemed to have no place in his thinking. Instead, he was primarily interested in just a little bit of comfort.

This is reminiscent of the reaction of those who will be excluded from the Kingdom:

• “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.” (Luke 13:28)

According to Jesus, their suffering wouldn’t be the product of God’s proactive moves to torture them, but their eternal loss of privilege and the blessings of the Kingdom.

However, the Luke 16 passage reflects an even more important aspect of condemnation. It seems that it is a matter of self-condemnation. The condemned will get the very thing that they have chosen - a comfortable dwelling place in the darkness away from the scrutiny of the Light:

• “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”(John 3:18-20)

How are they condemned already? According to Jesus, they are self-condemned by their refusal to come into the Light to confess their sins. The rich man also seems to have been unwilling to examine himself and confess. Even in Hades, he seems unwilling to surrender his inflated self-esteem. In two instances, he requested Abraham to send Lazarus to do his bidding, as if Lazarus would be eternally beneath him. Therefore, Abraham chided him about his obvious guilt so that he might confess and find mercy:

• “But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.’” (Luke 16:25)

It wasn’t that suffering had entitled Lazarus or that the rich man’s comfort and riches had dis-entitled him. After all, Abraham had also been a wealthy man, but he trusted in the Lord and came into His Light.

However, it seems like the rich man understood Abraham and the need to repent. However, confession and repentance weren’t his thing. Instead, the invitation might pertain to his brothers:

• “And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him [Lazarus] to my father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:27-31)

In Jesus’ parable, Abraham answered that a lack of evidence wasn’t the problem. They already had the self-authenticating Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, the problem was an aversion to the Light and a love of the darkness. Their love would condemn them also.

We cannot blame the Savior for our condemnation. We chose it for ourselves. Jesus had cried over His people:

• “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

The self-condemned are unwilling to abide in the Light of truth. Scripture testifies to the fact that the fault is not God’s but ours.