1. In his book, The Groaning of Creation, Christopher Southgate offers his interpretation of The Fall and redemption in the light of evolution. He calls his interpretation the “only way” argument. The argument can be summarized as: “The sort of universe that we have, in which complexity emerges in a process governed by thermodynamic necessity and Darwinian natural selection, and therefore by death, pain, and self-assertion, is the only sort of universe that could give rise to the range, beauty, complexity, and diversity of creatures the Earth has produced.” (pg. 29) Southgate states that his argument is an un-provable assumption, but is an excellent framework for understanding creation. He contends that non-human suffering confirms the evolution of species and Darwinism. Southgate disputes that suffering, death, and extinction are byproducts of Gods evolutionary process, something that is part of God’s overall plan for creation. In his argument, Southgate does not claim that God is evil for creating suffering, but instead argues that it is a fundamental part to create balance and aid the development of life (pg. 48). Southgate’s “only way” argument differs from Christianity’s traditional view of atonement theory. Traditionalists would argue that a just God would never allow or manufacture suffering or pain. Southgate disputes traditionalists by offering that the diversity and allure of life could never materialize without suffering. Under his theory, suffering and pain are not necessarily bad for creation but good. Suffering results in the growth of species and guides them towards fulfillment. Although Southgate supports the existence of suffering he does not reject the presence of sin or The Fall. Under his theory, The Fall was not purely a human offense, but part of creation. Since The Fall, all of creation has been striving to become the fittest, and most pure image of God. It is also important to separate suffering from sin when understanding the “only way” argument. Sin can be defined as a conscious action that negatively affects the fulfillment of other creatures. Sin impedes creations transcendence. Under the “only way” argument, sin intervenes with our development and causes conflict. Southgate states that there is a heaven and animals may go there. He argues that a good and loving God would not allow any of his creature’s lives to end without fulfillment. He references the bibles idea of a redeemed creation, not just for humans but all of creation (pg. 50). Southgate refers to heaven as a place where frustrated creatures may be satisfied and live a “good life.” I agree with Southgate’s conclusions. I believe that frustrated creatures must be given a second chance to live a pure life. God’s love for animals is shown repeatedly throughout the bible, resulting in a fair argument. Interestingly, I don’t think fulfillment should be limited to just humans, it would be ignorant for to think so. Why should we be given preference to live a “good life”, when animals are made in the same image and likeness of God.
2. “More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion or rethink our old one” (White 1206). White’s quote alludes to humanities anthropocentrism, the belief that humans are the central and most significant creatures on earth. This belief has given humans the idea that they are superior to all other creatures. White argues that people put themselves at the center of creation and give little thought to other creatures. Her point is true when considering the bible. In Genesis 1:28 God gave humans dominion over all creation. This passage has resulted in people misusing their authority and hurting creation in the process. White is correct by saying that people need to rethink their religions. Like all other passages in the bible, Genesis 1:28 can be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Religious authorities must always be aware of the potential issues when interpreting scripture literally. Instead of seeing creation as our own, we must act like stewards caring for it and participating without limiting the fulfillment of other species.
I agree with James Schaefer’s claim that: “We are damaging the Earth by forcing changes in the Global climate that cannot be ignored” (Miller 79). The quote is a great example of how the absence of stewardship has evolved into a major issue with religion. Because of humanities condition to place their interests over creations, we are now faced with a major climate change issue. Schaefer categorizes mankind’s wrongdoings as “planetary sins”, since they effect the planet in its entirety. Schaefer’s idea shows how sin is a major issue among humans, but it is difficult for us to measure what a planetary sin is. Is buying packaged or factory farmed food a sin? For those with less money these products will keep them alive, but being poor could predispose people to sin. Under Schaefer’s framework he argues that sin actually offends God, the creator of the world (Miller 80). Sin is very much a religious issue. It is religions role to understand the needs of creation and build alliances between humans and nature. By understanding patterns of sin and its prevalence, religion can create ways to balance humanities relationship with nature.