Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When God first created this world, he made all the creatures that exist to this day. That ranges from Sophisticated beings like Humans to creatures that only have a life-span of a day or two.

God must have had his own reasons to create these beings. My question is, why did God create creatures that seems to have no helpful attributes, such as wasps or flies? Those insects have nothing better to do in our own eyes than to spoil our food, hang around apartment buildings, etc.

We cannot imagine such beings helpful in any way. So (I dare to ask) why did God create these beings?

(BTW, excluding the bugs that are actually helpful; bees, for instance.)

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by fredsbend, Lee Woofenden, Nathaniel, bruised reed, curiousdannii Feb 1 at 15:08

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Well, ask any biologist or zoologist. Don't forget that even insects play an important role in the food chain and ecosystem of other species on the Earth which God placed here. – Matt Aug 2 '12 at 23:15
@Matt ...True. Can't believe I haven't thought of that... but did they have to be so annoying? – Phonics The Hedgehog Aug 2 '12 at 23:18
I too have asked myself this question many times, especially those times when lying in bed, trying to sleep and I suddenly hear that annoying sound of a mosquito ... – Shathur Aug 6 '12 at 12:20

Just because you can't think of a reason why a wasp is useful, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Second, there are clearly species that do not exist to this day. There are species today that did not exist in the past. And yet every species that has ever existed is part of the same grand tree of life.

share|improve this answer

Probably the one point that evolutionists and creationists would agree on is that there is no such thing as an "unnecessary creature".

Regardless of how we view the origins - the creations of an infinitely wise creator, or the result of eons of evolutionary processes, the simple fact remains that in most ecosystems, there is a balance, and each and every creature has it's job to do. Even the "gross" or "pesky" ones. Example: Flies lay maggots, which help to break down dead animals to return them to the soil.

The problem is that for most of us, we simply do not appreciate the intricate balance, and wonder at the incredible complexity of all of these organisms - whether plant or animal - all working together in perfect harmony.

The exception is when an invasive species is introduced into an environment where it does not belong. It's only when something throws the natural order out of balance that the rest of us tend to understand or really think about how intricately ordered the "norm" is.

share|improve this answer
Presuming you subscribe to the "infinitely wise creator" view (as I do), there was originally no such thing as an "invasive species" - that is purely a result of The Fall – warren Aug 3 '12 at 14:14
Invasive creatures may change things, but in some ways change is better than stagnation. The word has never been in stasis. Even with the utter destruction of one thing, it could mean another thing flourishing. Either way, it is an exercise in survival of the fittest and adaptability. Which isn't to say that I welcome such, but in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing new or extraordinary to nature. – Marc Gravell Aug 4 '12 at 7:51

Strictly speaking, no creatures are entirely "necessary."

While there are few (if any) issues to which all of Christendom offers a single response with unanimous support, one belief that is professed widely across traditions as well as Protestant denominations is that the God of the Bible is omnipotent. As such, he does not rely on any particular ecological balance in order to maintain the biological systems that he has created. The point here is not to address any of the concerns raised by environmentalists, and the concept of human stewardship of the creation is vital; the point is simply that, from a Christian perspective, creatures rely on God -- not the other way around.

Your question also calls to mind the effects of "the fall," as described in Genesis, chapter 3:

(17) And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

(18) thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

(19) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

While those verses, when considered in isolation, certainly leave ample room for interpretation as to precisely what the earth was like prior to the fall, there is certainly place for the notion that, prior to man's sin and the introduction of God's curse (v17), the earth was an entirely beneficent place, where problems of scarcity could not have arisen, and there was no biological antagonism toward life generally. There is some support for the belief, then, that those species of flora and fauna that many of us find to be 'aggravating' are uniquely a result of the curse, and did not exist in the Garden before the fall.

Another angle to take in responding to the question would be to reference the notion of God's sovereignty, and the belief, emphasized in Reformed theology, that the essential motivation for all of God's actions is his intent to bring glory to his name. While there are those who would disagree with this belief, it informs the perspective that all of the creatures that have been created exist to bring glory to their ultimate creator -- in fact, that is their only true purpose, with all other effects being secondary -- and each glorifies God in a particular way, whether willingly or otherwise.

share|improve this answer

I mostly agree with David Stratton. Let me add three points:

  1. Many creatures are "unnecessary" in the sense that if they became extinct, the world would still go on. But that just means that God did not create an ecosystem that was incredibly fragile. If one species becomes extinct, there is another that can take over the useful functions that it performed. Like any good engineer, God created redundancy and backup systems.

  2. What do you mean by "unnecessary"? Just because something in the universe doesn't benefit you personally doesn't mean it has no purpose. Perhaps God considers everything he created good in itself and an end in itself. The auto mechanic at Firestone is not valuable because he keeps my car working. He is valuable because he is a human being, period. (I am sure from his point of view, my main value to the world is that I give him money every time I bring my car in to be fixed.)

  3. Regarding creatures that annoy you, like wasps: We live in a fallen, degenerating world. Sin has corrupted everything. Most creationists believe that before the Fall, all animals were vegetarians. I'd theorize that insects did not bite people but got their sustenance some other way.

share|improve this answer
Does the Bible even mention that all animals were vegetarians before? I don't think so. – quantumSoup Aug 3 '12 at 20:27
@quant: Genesis 9:3 is sometimes interpreted as teaching that man was originally created as a vegetarian. Some quick research might turn up starting points for further study. – Philip Schaff Aug 4 '12 at 9:44
@quantumSoup Isa 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox" – Monika Michael Aug 5 '12 at 14:16
Gen 1:29-30 say God gave people and animals herbs and fruit for food -- no mention of meat. As @quant notes, in Gen 9:1-3, God says that before he gave men plants to eat, but now they may eat meat. (I don't think that's just "sometimes interpreted", it's the plain reading.) (This is right after the Flood, so some theorize that changes in the environment made a vegetarian diet no longer practical.) So it's not just that meat wasn't mentioned in Gen 1. It was deliberately excluded. Of course people and animals might have eaten meat despite anything God said, but that was apparently his plan. – Jay Aug 5 '12 at 18:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.