Thomas at Without Authority writes on death and whether we should consider it natural and/or evil in itself. I think he’s on the right track there (and I’m not just saying that because he had nice things to say about a few of my posts).

I’m intrigued by his last paragraph where he says:

So, in my estimation, the evolutionary biologists are right when they say that death is a necessary part of nature. But are they also correct in concluding that the world is not good, as the book of Genesis would have us believe? I think the answer depends on how one interprets the biblical statements concering the goodness of creation. Are these meant to imply that the world is intrinsically good, that is, good in-and-of-itself? Or do they mean that creation is only good when it’s in communion with its Creator? I think the latter answer is correct, which means that only a redeemed creation is truly “good”. We should never draw too sharp a distinction between God’s roles as Creator and Redeemer, as if He first made a supposedly good creation and then had to save it when all hell broke loose. Creation always involves redemption, and redemption always involves a new creation. Thus, it’s not surprising that a purely atheistic worldview like neo-Darwinism is incapable of seeing the inherent goodness of creation, since it cuts itself off from the salvation that redeems and restores this fractured world.

I take this to mean that creation is always in “process” toward the final consummation. This seems at odds with the traditional notion that creation “at the beginning” was finished and perfect as it was, and only later fell into sin and disharmony. Maybe this is more consonant with the somewhat popular “Irenaean” (after Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and scourge of gnostics) account of the fall that sees creation and humanity as progressing from a state of relative immaturity to one of perfect communion with God. On this view, the fall was more like a detour from this intended path than a cataclysmic rupture from a state of perfect bliss.