[dagw]

As pointed out above, the serpent isn't necessarily named "Satan"

Are we talking about the bible or Milton? I agree it's not clear in the bible, but feel Milton makes it quite clear.

It might have been harmful to humanity to have been kicked out of the garden

I'm not even really sure that's the point. 'Humanity' is a third party in that fight. God had built this new, fragile creature, the 'best' thing he'd ever made. He realized they where fragile and put them in the garden to protect them. Satan is pissed off at God for casting him out and decided to fuck with God by breaking his new toy that he knows God is very proud of. None of them seem to care too much about the long term fate of humanity.

If a child destroys a poorly-built house by kicking it, do we blame the child?

If a child destroys an extremely fragile work of art, do we blame the artist for not making his art more robust.

[jessaustin]

You (and Milton, perhaps?) are assuming more about God and God's motivations than is present in the source material. We're told that He "loves" us, but that didn't prevent the many other episodes described in Scripture in which we have sinned and been punished for it. Original Sin isn't somehow different from all those we've committed since. The artist who places her fragile art in the same room with a destructive child, even if she isn't omniscient, probably knows what's coming next. She probably considers the child's actions to be art, as well.