The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all.
Your basis is the false premises that 1) ancient stories are true, 2) ancient stories are of divine origin, 3) random events can arbitrarily be attributed to a divine debt or cause, 4) your own ideology cherry picking whatever you decide, hypocritically rejecting the rest.
A critic's basis may be analysis, historical context of the text, comparative mythology, critical thinking, ability to distinguish what is plausible and implausible, informed thinking supported by science and human ethics that continued to evolve since the ancient world.
The former is known for fallacious reasoning, motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, gullibility, appeal to false authorities, making false accusations, false attribution, ill-justified abuse. The latter is likely to be more informed, more relevant to us today, to determine what is inspirational, unacceptable or irrelevant, with a tendency to be reality-based in its approach. In this case, assuming that the legend had any basis in reality, an unrelated incident was falsely attributed to another event.
If you swallow the legend, it means that you are letting yourself be influenced by the false justification of murder for a mundane event due to immaturity. If no animals "enacted divine judgment", you could claim that humans should murder instead. If you are superstitious you could even fall into the insane belief that if you do not murder them, animals might come and attack.
False attribution and superstition has led to the abuse and killing of innocents. Witch burnings are an example. Attacking another tribe because someone falls ill in your family is another.
If you are unable to detect the context of the legend, its obvious jump to a false conclusion and the blatant injustice in it, you are incompetent to lecture about history or ethics. You will find many such fear mongering stories for children in medieval literature. Most people grew out of those by age 12...
But just assuming that it was true, what would the story reveal about your deity? Wouldn't it be an immature, vulnerable, vengeful bully, invented by humans, a literary device for their stories? It sounds more realistic and less insulting than if it was a real deity... If the goal was to teach a child about respect, wouldn't it be better for them to understand that their behavior could hurt somebody else? Instead of telling them that the ultimate bad example, a big bully in the sky, will murder them out of immaturity and improperly justified revenge? If look is that important, why the inability of the deity to preserve or impove the looks of their supposed representatives?
The "chemical accident" nonsense is best called a dishonest straw man to mislead the ignorant.