Does “Evil” Behavior in the Animal Kingdom Disprove Creation by a Good God?

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Misc

 Article in Brief

Skeptics argue that animal creation by a good God cannot be true because of the heinous things that many creatures do. Creationists, however, have identified five reasonable explanations for the existence of supposed “natural evil” that exonerate God: degeneration, displacement, diversification, disobedience, and design.

According to Darwinian evolution, all species evolved from previous species, beginning with a single-celled organism. As new species emerged, “survival of the fittest” took over—the selfish tooth-and-claw battle for survival. Morality, according to naturalistic evolutionists, is a purely human construct.1 It did not (and could not) have evolved from non-living substances. It only exists in the minds of humans, and right and wrong are purely man’s opinion. Right and wrong, therefore, did not exist until humans created them. There is no objective right and wrong that is above humanity. Murder, rape, theft, kidnapping—all “immoral” behavior cannot be said to be inherently wrong if Darwinian evolution is true. Biblical creationists, of course, argue that objective morality does, in fact, exist and that it is defined by God, not humans.

Naturalistic evolutionists sometimes respond by arguing that, while evolution (namely, “survival of the fittest”) can explain natural evil,2 if an all-good God designed the Universe, why would there be cases of “natural/biological evil”—that is, “evil” practices in the non-human world? Many creatures do seemingly terrible things. Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins highlighted that, “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.”3 The late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, stated, “If God is benevolent and the Creation displays his ‘power, wisdom and goodness,’ then why are we surrounded with pain, suffering, and apparently senseless cruelty in the animal world?”4 Animals do things that humans would consider barbaric and wicked. In the case of certain microorganisms (e.g., phagocytes), sometimes their only function seems to be to do terrible things to other living things. That seems to be all they were designed to do! The sea otter sometimes rapes-to-death juvenile harbor seals. The female black widow spider engages in sexual cannibalism, eating the male black widow after mating. The Emerald cockroach wasp stings a cockroach and implants an egg in it. The cockroach then stays alive as the wasp hatches and eats its way out of the cockroach. In some instances, mother bears, felines, canids, primates, various rodents, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds have all been known to eat their offspring. Many primates engage in homosexual behavior. Venom and poison exist; viruses and diseases exist. How can the Creator be good if He designed such creatures? And why would He then proceed to call such behavior “evil” when humans engage in the same things, considering the fact that He actually designed other living things to do those very things? Is not such behavior hypocritical? How do creationists explain “natural evil”?

First, keep in mind that, according to Scripture, the Earth and its inhabitants are not the same today as they were originally, when God made them. Women go through more pain in childbirth (5:293:16). Plants have changed (Genesis 3:17-18). Animals have changed: all land creatures were originally created to eat only plants, for instance, according to Genesis 1:29-30. The injection of thorns and thistles among plants (Genesis 3:17-18) no doubt affected the dietary behaviors of animals. “The serpent” was cursed to crawl on its belly (Genesis 3:14), possibly referring to all serpents, not merely Eve’s unique tempter. Humans could no longer live forever by having access to the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:19,22). What has happened to effect such seemingly negative changes? Why does “natural evil” exist in the animal kingdom?

Five Reasonable Explanations for “Natural Evil”

1) Genetic Degeneration

Creation biologists are well aware of so-called biological “evil”5 and spend time studying it as well as presenting and writing about it in Bible-based, peer-reviewed science journals and conferences, tracking down what could be going on in each case.6 In some cases, such behaviors are the result of genetic degeneration—that is, a creature’s genome mutating over time, causing the creature no longer to behave in the exact manner it was designed by God to behave (e.g., sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, the Ebola virus7, and venom).8 The Universe is decaying in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics—the genome included.9 As the psalmist said, the Universe and the Earth are growing old like a garment (Psalm 102:25-26). They are changing and degenerating. Genetic entropy could have changed the behaviors of various creatures over time from the ways they were originally created to behave.

2) Habitat Displacement

In some cases, such behavior could be the result of creatures being displaced from the ideal environment they were designed to inhabit, causing them to behave differently—to react differently to their new environment than they would in their original habitat.10 Perhaps their original environment no longer exists. The Flood, a natural disaster, or even human activity, could have destroyed their originally designed ecosystem. Perhaps over time a creature was forced to migrate to a different habitat in search of food. If the creature’s new habitat had other stimuli than those of its designed habitat (e.g., different climate, animals, or plants), the creature would naturally respond differently. Once again, animals are not exactly the same as they were when they were created and placed on the Earth. When Genesis 9:2 states that, after the Flood, animals would begin to fear humans, Moses may have been alluding to the impact that the radically different post-Flood Earth would have on animals. After all, “the world that then existed [i.e., before the Flood—JM] perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:6).

3) Offspring Diversification

In some cases, seemingly natural evil could come about due to diversification. This explanation refers to the change that has occurred in animal varieties as they have diversified over time due, for example, to the genetic potential that God built into the genomes of all living creatures (e.g., Genesis 30:37-39). In other words, in some cases, God did not directly create an animal initially with the behaviors that we witness today. Instead, as living creatures of the Earth have reproduced within their kinds (Genesis 1:24), new varieties within the originally created designs have emerged (e.g., domestic dogs came from wolves, and dozens of domestic dog breeds have since come from the original domestic dogs). As breeding occurs, new behaviors sometimes accompany the new varieties (e.g., compare the innate behavioral differences between dogs such as Pit bulls and Labradors).

4) Human Disobedience

In many cases, examples of “natural evil” could point back to what occurred in Genesis 3. According to verses 17-19, Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden caused God to punish man by directly cursing the Earth in a way that created difficulty for Adam in providing for his family.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.”

Eating, which was once easy—reaching up and grabbing fruit from trees—would now require sweat. The ground across the planet was apparently then populated with thorns and thistles due to God’s cursing it (see Genesis 5:29)11, possibly affecting the diets of animals, since many plants would have become difficult to eat. Again, “the serpent” was forced to move on its belly. Genesis 6:12 could be referring, in part, to changes in the animal kingdom initiated by the curse: by the time of the Flood “all flesh had corrupted their way on the Earth”—which, according to verse 19, may be referring to animals as well as humans. Whether they negatively changed because of God’s activity in the curse or due to their interactions with humans (e.g., from special breeding or mistreatment), human disobedience has no doubt been at the root of many cases of “biological evil.”

Who could know, other than God, what all was directly affected by the curse He brought about on the Earth due to the sin of Adam and Eve? Who could know, besides God, what changes He directly initiated in “every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea” after the Flood, causing them to “fear” and “dread” humans (Genesis 9:2)? Were genetic “switches” flipped by God that activated or deactivated certain genes that affected animal behavior? Were certain epigenetic behaviors initiated? Regardless, punishment for the wicked behavior in which all men participate (Romans 3:23) is loving,12 just,13 and even helpful (e.g., Hebrews 12:5-11; Psalm 119:6714).

5) Original Design

Creationists also do not deny the possibility that, in some cases, a supposed “evil” behavior among the animals could come down to original design. In fact, in one way or another—be it due to God directly cursing the Earth as fair punishment on men or the indirect effects of His actions (or inactions) in the past (e.g., by creating/allowing entropy/degeneration and diversification, and causing/allowing displacement)—God is in some way “responsible” for “natural evil.”

But what is “evil”? Who defines what constitutes “evil,” and is “natural evil” really “moral evil” in that sense? From a biblical perspective, what is considered “evil” or “good” is defined by God (and only God) and, in essence, their definitions come down to disobedience or obedience to God’s instructions, respectively.15 One may not like God’s definition of “evil,” but one cannot charge Him with evil actions unless those actions are defined as evil by God. Is “natural evil” really “evil” in God’s sight?

Murder is moral “evil” in God’s sight—He defines it to be so (e.g., Galatians 5:21). However, killing is not inherently wrong.16 It is wrong when it involves the murder of a human, but it is not wrong when it involves human death carried out by man (or God) as God-endorsed capital punishment.17 Killing is not evil when it is enacted on animals by humans for food (Genesis 9:3; Acts 10:13), clothing (note that God, Himself, used animal skin to make clothes for Adam and Eve—Genesis 3:21) or, before the Christian age, sacrifice. Nor is it moral evil in God’s sight when animals kill one another.

As evidence that animals killing other animals is not inherently “evil” in God’s sight, consider the fact that animals apparently were able to die from the beginning (e.g., from killing one another)—before the first sin.18 Since only those who ate from the Tree of Life could live forever (Genesis 3:22-24), all those who did not partake would eventually die. Animals’ ability to die was apparently part of God’s original design. So, some creatures could have been designed to do things to other living creatures that humans cannot do since, unlike animals, humans are moral creatures made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).19 Unlike evolutionary thinking, humans are different. We are not merely “naked apes.” Humans have been given commands by God that animals were not given—commands that, if disobeyed, are defined by God as “evil.” Animals were not created with souls20 or free will and, therefore, are not capable of engaging in evil behavior in the way humans can. Animals are no more accountable to God for their instinctual behavior than would be a malfunctioning robot. Animals will not be in hell, in spite of the fact that they “murder” and “fornicate” regularly. The fact that humans were made in the image of God, having souls, free will, and a sense of right and wrong, instead of mere instinct, makes humans of “more value” than the animals, as Jesus highlighted in Matthew 6:26-30, Matthew 10:31, and Matthew 12:12. Bottom line: “natural evil” is not really moral evil.

But why might God have intentionally designed some creatures to behave in ways that would be evil if humans did the same things? First, obviously, if an animal was actually designed to behave a certain way, it would be purposeful to God. So, there would be a good reason for it. When we consider that the purpose of the Universe is to provide a place that would be ideal for preparing human souls for the afterlife,21 it opens our minds to possible reasons for those God-engineered designs.

For example: is it true that seeing certain behaviors in the animal kingdom can be instructive to humans? Whether a behavior serves as a warning to humans about what a society can look like if we fail to rise above the carnal instincts of the animals, an inspiration to humans about how to behave to have a better life, or an incessant prompt causing us to long for and pursue entrance into that Land where there is no pain, tears, darkness, or death (Revelation 21:4,25), animal behavior can be instructive to humans. No wonder that, repeatedly throughout Scripture, God encourages us to look at His creation to see things He wants us to learn (e.g., Psalm 111:2; Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20)—from Job 38-41 to Proverbs 30 to Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6, and dozens of other examples.22

Conclusion

Bottom line: there are reasonable explanations for so called “natural evil” in the animal kingdom that prove God is not guilty of moral evil—nor are animals. Humans, on the other hand, are guilty of real evil (Romans 3:23), and there are real consequences for that behavior. Attempting to sidestep that truth and reject God, by erroneously charging Him with immoral or hypocritical behavior, will not save a person from his inevitable fate. The payment for moral evil is physical and spiritual death (Romans 5:12)—the eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:9) of all humans who fail to take advantage of God’s gift of life, granted only to those who are in Christ (Romans 6:23). Are you in Christ?23 Contact us at Apologetics Press if we can help.

Endnotes

1 Charles Darwin (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 94; Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 301; William Provine (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm; Richard Dawkins (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 2-3.

2 In truth, evolution cannot explain the origin of living creatures at all, much less cases of “natural evil” within the animal kingdom. See Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Jeff Miller (2024), “4 Reasons to Believe Evolution Is Not True,” Reason & Revelation, 44[8]:2-11, August.

3 Richard Dawkins (1995), River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson), pp. 131-132.

4 Stephen Jay Gould (1982), “Nonmoral Nature,” Natural History, 91[2]:19.

5 Todd Charles Wood and Megan J. Murray (2003), Understanding the Pattern of Life (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman), pp. 154-167; Paul Garner (2009), The New Creationism (Louisville, KY: Evangelical Press), pp. 161-162; Kurt P. Wise (2002), Faith, Form, and Time (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman), pp. 161-162,166; Kurt P. Wise (2018), Devotional Biology: Learning to Worship the Creator of Organisms (Nashville, TN: Compass Classroom), pp. 109-114.

6 E.g., J. Francis (2022), “A Creationist Perspective of the Human Virome and Origin of Viral Pathology,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 12:1-10; A.S. Rhodes, M.G. Wentley, and J.D. Blaschke (2020), “Evidence for a Recent Transition into Parasitism within four Phyla of Marine Animals,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 10:1-8; M.G. Wentley, A.S. Rhodes, and J.D. Blaschke (2020), “Community, Autonomy, and the Emergence of Parasitism,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 10:1-8; J. Blaschke (2018), “Toward a Young-Earth Model of Parasite Evolution,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 8:1-5; J. Blaschke (2014), “Ancestral State Reconstruction as a New Method for Identifying Baramins of Pathogens and Parasites,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 4:23-30; Joseph W. Francis and Todd C. Wood (2013), “A Creationist Perspective on the Origin of Pathogenic Vibrio Cholerae and Vibrio Cholerae Toxin (CT),” Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 7, Article 29; Joseph W. Francis (2003), “The Organosubstrate of Life: A Creationist Perspective of Microbes and Viruses,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 5, Article 40.

7 Wood and Murray, p. 162.

8 Garner, p. 161; Jeffrey P. Tomkins (2015), “Snake Venom, Genetic Entropy, and Adam’s Curse,” Acts & Facts, https://www.icr.org/article/snake-venom-genetic-entropy-adams-curse.

9 J.C. Sanford (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications).

10 E.g., gut bacteria (Garner, p. 161).

11 Is it possible that the rest of the Earth outside of the Garden was already populated with thorns, thistles, and other negative aspects and that Adam and Eve simply did not have to experience those effects since they were in the Garden (i.e., that the “curse” was merely their being forced from the Garden to experience those effects)? Genesis 3:17 explicitly states that the ground was cursed by God due to the sin of Adam and Eve (not because of its original created state). Genesis 5:29 further verifies the fact that God actually changed the nature of the Earth in the curse.

12 Eric Lyons (2008), “Is Punishing Evildoers Unloving?” R&R Resources, 7[10]:37R-40R, October.

13 Eric Lyons (2021), “How Can a Loving God Send Souls to Hell?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/how-can-a-loving-god-send-souls-to-hell/.

14 See also Proverbs 23:13-14; 2 Chronicles 33:12.

15 E.g., 2 Kings 17:13.

16 Kyle Butt (2009), “Killing, Murder, and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/killing-murder-and-the-bible-2794/.

17 Dave Miller (2012), “God and Capital Punishment,” Reason & Revelation, 32[7]:62-71, July.

18 Jeff Miller (2016), “Could There Have Been Any Death Before the Fall?” Reason & Revelation, 36[8]:74-80, August.

19 Eric Lyons and Bert Thompson (2002), “In the ‘Image and Likeness of God’ [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, 22[4]:25-31, April.

20 Bert Thompson and Sam Estabrook (1999), “Do Animals Have Souls?” Reason & Revelation, 19:89-92, December.

21 Dave Miller (2016), “Why People Suffer [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 36[1]:2-11, January.

22 Jeff Miller (2025), “Studying Science from a Biblical Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 45[1]:2-5, January.

23 See Kyle Butt (2006), “In Christ,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/in-christ-1982/, as well as the 13-lesson series of short videos, “Salvation Matters,” on the Apologetics Press website for an introductory study of the subject.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.