Yesterday I suggested
that when God used the word “good” to describe his creative works, what is primarily
in view is that each new thing God initiated was supremely suited to its conceived
purpose, divinely calibrated to be absolutely appropriate to its intended use.
The end product was “good” in the sense that while it may be possible, for instance, to imagine other ways
in which God might have constructed a goat — with three heads, five eyes
and eight legs, perhaps — one would be hard-pressed to explain why the
extra heads, limbs or eyeballs make the new form preferable to the original.
Mere innovation is not necessarily improvement.