Is there good in separateness from God?

I have been studying the theology of "creation care" recently and one of the books I am reading has a passage I can't wrap my mind around. The authors are men I respect and with whom I generally agree, but they make a bold statement: there is goodness in the separateness of creation from God.

Here is a passage from the book:

There are two ways of reading the phrase "and God saw that it was good,"
which appears six times in Genesis 1. The first is that the goodness of
creation is a reflection of the goodness of God -- a way of saying "I am
good." This meaning is evident in such declarations of the Psalmist as
"the heavens are telling the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). Unquestionably,
then, one purpose of creation is to give God glory.

The other dimension to the phrase does not contradict the first, but it is
often overlooked. The statement is not only a reflection of the goodness
of God. It is often misquoted as "God said that is was good," implying that
the goodness of creation is the result of divine fiat. But in the wording
"God saw," there is a recognition of the separateness of creation -- and of
the goodness in the separateness. Most profoundly and mysteriously, it
points to the price the Creator was willing to pay for the independence of
his creation.

Thus God does not simply "say" or "declare" the goodness of what he has
made: he sees its goodness, as a free response to his own calling.
Though its origin is clearly from God, the very fact of creation gives
creatures an independence, a goodness, and a freedom of their own.
"God saw that creation was good" is thus not so much a declaration
as it is a response to creation.

The first question seems to be whether God actively declares -- thereby assigning -- creation's goodness or He passively observes -- thereby acknowledging -- creation's goodness. The Hebrew word "saw" in Genesis 1 is "ra'ah" which means to see, to understand intellectually, to perceive. This certainly implies God observed, He didn't declare.

Following the authors' logic, I think they would go on to say the implicit goodness God observes in creation was derived entirely from Him. So a passive observation makes Him no less responsible for creation's goodness.

That said, what more (if anything) should we interpret from the repeated use of the word "saw?" Can we go as far as to agree with this sentence: "But in the wording 'God saw,' there is a recognition of the separateness of creation -- and of the goodness in the separateness?"

Sin has clearly caused separation between creation and God, but is there a benign separateness before the Fall? A liberty that is good in itself but distorted by man?