Exactly, I agree. If some animals switched from eating only plants before the Fall (obligate herbivory) to eating meat afterwards, they would have had to change form in drastic ways. There would need to be significant changes in morphology of the teeth/jaws, digestive tract, sensory systems, metabolism etc. They literally would need to change their nature and identity. Ultimately, this opens a big can of worms, as these changes could be of a macroevolutionary magnitude....
Ken Ham and others, while well intentioned, often cherry-pick omnivores (animals eating both plants and meat) which have "carnivore-looking" teeth such as land-based bears, coyotes, etc. to make a drawn-out argument that ALL carnivores could have survived on plants alone before the Fall (in other words, he thinks drastic changes weren't needed). However, many of these animals, especially those in the dog family, wouldn't do so well if you removed all the meat from their diet. And the fact that bears also eat plants in addition to meat is actually reflected in their teeth (the blunt carnassials, vs sharper ones in a more active carnivore). Therefore, their teeth are actually different from those of an obligate carnivore.
And these examples neglect predators that by their nature feed exclusively on meat. Cats of all kinds and sizes for example are obligate carnivores. When vegans try to force their house cats to eat a vegan diet too to "save the environment" (lol), the cat inevitably becomes ill. The vast majority of raptor birds such as hawks are equipped with the talons and beaks best used for seizing/processing animal prey, and are active predators. The anatomy and behavior of snakes such as constrictors are set up for restraining, engulfing, and digesting animal prey. And while reconstructions of extinct animals are never as certain as living ones, and should be looked at with caution, it cannot be denied that many dinosaurs (T rex, Spinosaurus, Velociraptors etc.) have teeth and claws that were best used to prey on other animals.
This becomes even more apparent in the ocean. Penguins can only feed on fish, krill, squid etc. Dolphins, whales, porpoises, and seals feed exclusively on fish, mollusks, and crustaceans; their teeth (or baleen), GI tract, and sensory systems could only work for this kind of diet. The razor sharp teeth of most sharks and many other fish are specifically used for slashing, ripping, and cutting the flesh of animals. A deep sea anglerfish's bioluminescent lure is specifically used to entice small fish, which are then consumed by teeth only a predator could have. Adult sea anemones and jelly fish are all based on the concept of trapping animals with stinging cells, and then feeding on them.
Parasites are another good example. Something like a tapeworm or roundworm relies on the animal it infests, and really can only do that. In fact, tapeworms are so dependent on their hosts, they don't even have a digestive tract; they just absorb nutrients they are bathed in within the host's intestines. To envision "back-engineering" a tapeworm into something that could live outside the animal host long-term and eat plants before the Fall would mean making into something different from a tapeworm; a completely different animal.
Another interesting way to look at this would be to observe the forms that animals use to defend against predators. The shell of a turtle, the quills of a porcupine, armor of an armadillo etc. are overtly defensive structures; a primary function of these is to protect against predators. If no predation/death existed prior to the Fall, the nature of these animals really doesn't make much sense.
Even on these natural levels, St. Thomas's statement that the animals' diet and "natural antipathy" didn't change at the Fall (even though their behavior towards humans did change then, creating the disorder) seems to make more and more sense.
Great points, Hansel!
1. Yes, such changes could be considered macroevolutionary, and therefore impossible. Also such changes would seem to contradict Holy Writ, wherein it is revealed that God created all the living things according to their kinds. Philosophy helps us to understand these kinds - the principle of essence limiting the principle of existence, and this according to the substantial form. I think it is correct to say that the accidents we see in animals, such as their teeth, anatomy, digestive tracts, etc., are also limited by the form. Change the accidents and you change the form - which is impossible. (Perhaps we can talk about chimeras/GMO's further ahead.)
Additionally, every single created species is in some way reflective of the attributes of the Divine Creator. Psalm 44:
The queen stood on Thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety. There are many solid interpretations of this verse, including that it signifies Our Lady, or the Church. I often read it as signifying Creation, which has for its two most prominent hallmarks, hierarchical order and innumerable variety.
Cockroaches, serpents, flesh-eaters - these all reflect either Divine attributes, or realities of Creation and Redemption. At the very least, all of these beings reflect God as Pure Existence. But there are many other applicable analogies. If only men would contemplate creation prayerfully, it would read like another Holy Writ, with, perhaps, even the same four senses.
2. Ken Ham is a creep. Inside his creation museum, is a room dedicated to trashing the Roman Catholic Church. I wrote him to complain, and I never received a reply.
3. I love all your examples. There is a fantastic book, which you can read at archive.org. It was published circa 1926. Fr. Barry O'Toole, The Case Against Evolution. There may be some cosmological or other minor errors in it. I can't remember now. But it is chock full of examples like what you've supplied; and also excellent arguments of a philosophical nature, which prove many of the certain truths of natural religion.
Topic: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago. (Read 7028 times)