It’s called free will.
There are indications in the Bible that man was created to redeem creation.
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who are the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:20-23 ESV)
It's not a hill I would die on, but I believe that part of Adam's original purpose was to redeem creation that had already been corrupted by Satan. Satan had already sinned, fallen from glory, and was waiting to deceive Adam and Eve not terribly long after they were created.
When was creation subjected to futility? And who subjected it to futility?
For those who believe that God could not have created animal death as part of the original creation, Satan's earlier fall and corruption of the earth explains very well the fact that God initially placed humans in a special place, the Garden of Eden, where at least some normal rules of nature did not apply. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were banished from the special place called Eden and forced into the outside world. While it is true that God cursed creation because of man, he spoke of making it more difficult for men to make their living and more difficult for women to bear children -- not to cause T. Rex to stop being a vegetarian and begin eating meat.
Again, this is mostly speculation. Other than the verse I cited and a few other verses, the Bible has little to say on the subject.
And a “perfect” man would choose the correct answer given his free will. Therefor according you we were created with flawed judgment.
“It’s called free will.”
This jogged my memory about something I learned in school a long time ago.
One of the main philosophical arguments against the existence of God has to do with the existence of evil. If God is all good and all powerful, then evil would not exist. However, there is evil in the world. Therefore, If there is a God, He is either unwilling, or unable to to prevent it. This negates the Judeo-Christian idea that God is both all good and all powerful. The other possibility is that there is no God.
The counter to this argument is that it is not “analytical”, since what we call “good” and “evil” interact in a complex way. Unless we are talking about mathematically defined quantities, the whole may be more than the sum of its parts. For example, a story with a “bad” tragic ending may be more uplifting or more interesting than than the same story with a “good” happy ending. So the fact that “evil” happened in the story elevated the status of the hero (”Gran Torino”). Or demonstrated the depth of a man’s love for a woman (Romeo and Juliet).
Your “free will” response was interesting. Even a priest would admit that God can’t or doesn’t do things that are logically contradictory (like make a square circle). So if the best of all worlds required men to have “free will” then He would have to allow evil to exist.