https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2348
Evolution, Environmentalism, and the Deification of Nature
[
EDITOR’S NOTE: The printed version of this article in this month’s issue of
Reason & Revelation is the
abbreviated form of a more lengthy study of this topic. To view the unedited version,
click here.]
The year was 1970. It was the year of the Kent State shootings, Simon
and Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water,” Apollo 13, the disbanding
of the Beatles, the X-rated movie
Midnight Cowboy winning the
Best Picture Oscar, the drug-related deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis
Joplin, as well as the death of Scopes Monkey Trial defendant John T.
Scopes. That year also marked the birth of the modern environmental
movement, with the observance of the first Earth Day on April 22 (see
“1970,” 2000). By July, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed.
Various pieces of federal legislation designed to protect the
environment quickly followed, including the Clean Air Act (1970), the
Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973) [see
“Major Environmental Laws,” 2003]. Since 1970, it is safe to say, the
American way of life has been altered drastically. The environmental
movement has changed forever the way Americans view the world around
them. Even the otherwise environmentally insensitive citizen now
possesses heightened consciousness about littering, recycling, global
warming, and “going organic.” But things have gotten out of hand.
It was one thing for young people who embraced this perspective to
march in the streets in the 1960s and promote their offbeat, fanatical
ideas. But now that they have moved into powerful political positions,
their ideas permeate policy and literally wreak havoc on people’s lives.
Fringe environmentalist groups, in collusion with liberal politicians,
Hollywood celebrities, and the mainstream media, have conspired to
unleash a flood of environmental propaganda and eco-myths. First it was
the “deadly” ozone-depleting hairspray aerosols. Then it was the evil
internal combustion engine. They have inundated the public with their
alarmist claims that global pollution, ozone depletion, and
environmental contamination due to technological progress and American
affluence mean that life on Earth is facing inevitable and imminent
extinction. They insist that humans are inflicting widespread damage on
the environment, destroying the forests, and causing the extinction of
animal and plant species. Friends of the Earth International insists:
“[T]he Earth is a creation to be honored and respected
as our Mother” (see “Friends of the Earth...,” 2007, emp. added).
Multiple examples demonstrate the absurd extent to which
environmentalists are willing to go. A 400-page United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization report has identified rapidly growing herds of
cattle as the greatest threat to the environment (Lean, 2006). We are
told that the 1.5 billion cattle on Earth are responsible for 18% of the
greenhouse gases that cause global warming—more than cars, planes, and
all other forms of transportation combined. More than a third of the
greenhouse gas, methane (which warms the world 20 times faster than
carbon dioxide), is emitted by cows and their manure. And it is not just
methane, since cattle also produce more than 100 other polluting gases,
including more than two-thirds of the world’s emissions of ammonia—one
of the main causes of acid rain (Lean, 2006). That’s right, gaseous
expulsions by cows damage the planet more than emissions from cars.
Environmentalists are beside themselves.
Researchers
at Norway’s technical university claim that their national animal, the
moose, is harming the climate by emitting over 2,000 kilos of carbon
dioxide per year—equivalent to the CO
2 produced by an 8,000
mile car trip (“Norway’s Moose...,” 2007). [Poor Bullwinkle now is
politically incorrect.] Yet, Australian scientists are delighted with
the discovery that flatulent kangaroos produce almost no greenhouse gas
methane due to their peculiar digestive flora (bacteria)—which
researchers hope can be transplanted into cows and sheep to prevent
their contributions to global warming (“Flatulent Kangaroos...,” 2007).
But it doesn’t stop there. Scientists from Austria and Germany recently
reported that, though we humans are but one of the millions of species
on Earth, we use up almost one-fourth of the sun’s energy captured by
plants—the most of any species. More than half of the use is due to the
harvesting of crops and other plants (Leung, 2007). You read that right.
It is bad enough that we humans are soaking up more than our fair share
of the Sun’s rays simply by being outdoors; but we are exploiting poor,
defenseless green plants by greedily harvesting and consuming their
bounty, thereby stealing from them the benefit they derived from the
Sun.
To top such nonsense off, while it is common for environmentalists to
blame mankind as the prime perpetrator of environmental destruction, now
one environmentalist insists that, more specifically,
children
are significant culprits in the human assault on the natural order.
Parents, we are told, should limit their offspring to no more than two
children in order to reduce carbon dioxide output. The report published
by the environmentalist group, Optimum Population Trust, insists that
the greatest thing one could do to help the future of the planet would
be to have one less child (Templeton, 2007).
Let’s get this straight. Cows cause global warming, so we need to
reduce the cow population. If we kill cows, we will upset the animal
rights people. If we eat cows, we will offend the vegetarians. If we
allow the present population of cows to live to old age and die
naturally, we could arrest the growth of the cow population by
performing partial birth abortions on all cows that get pregnant. But
that, too, likely would upset animal rights people (who probably would
have no problem doing the same to pre-born humans—especially since kids
contribute to the CO
2 problem). Since harvesting crops and
other green plants is stealing solar energy, we need to cease consuming
plants—to the further dismay of the vegetarians. Any of this making
sense to you?
ASSUMPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
Radical environmentalists and animal rights activists share many of the
same philosophical presuppositions held by atheists, evolutionists,
Buddhists, Hindus, New Age mystics, and other forms of humanism,
animism, and paganism from antiquity to the present. Their perspective
is embodied in
pantheism. To them, the material realm
is all that exists. There are no metaphysical realities. The Universe is
here because of accidental, non-purposive happenstances. “Deity”
resides in all
natural phenomena—from rocks and dirt,
to plants, animals, and humans. “God” is not the personal, Supreme Being
of the Bible, Who is self-existent and transcendent of the Universe.
Rather “god” is an impersonal force embedded in nature, in the physical
realm, and in all life forms (cf. “The Force” in the
Star Wars series).
The fundamental fallacy of the modern environmental movement is this
inherent denial of supernaturalism and metaphysical reality. Rather than
acknowledging that the entire Universe was created miraculously by the
transcendent God of the Bible, Who both prepared and perpetuates the
Earth for human habitation (Genesis 1:1-2:19; 8:22; Hebrews 11:3), the
environmental movement posits the absence of
supernatural origins and the necessity of an
eternal
Universe. Hence, the physical environment must be protected and
preserved by humans in order for life to continue. The future of the
Earth is viewed as dependent on mankind. If man damages the fragile
environment, he is hastening its demise.
Renowned Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan held this view: “I
believe we have an obligation to fight for life on Earth—not just for
ourselves, but for all those, humans
and others, who came before us, and to whom we are beholden, and for all those who, if
we
are wise enough, will come after” (1997, p. 75, emp. added). He also
insisted that “[o]ur capacity to cause harm is great” (p. 97). In other
words, the future of the planet—and all life on it—lies completely in
the hands of
humanity. Are we humans really so arrogant
as to think that the future of the planet rests with us? Are we really
so foolish as to think that the digestive tract of cows are
defective—the result of mindless evolution rather than the all-knowing
Creator—and that it falls to us to correct it?
If environmentalists believe that human beings are the product of the
chance, mechanistic forces of nature working over millions of years
through non-intelligent, evolutionary accidents, one can understand why
they might think that we must preserve the planet at all costs—even at
the expense of humans. To them, human beings are simply one more rung on
the evolutionary ladder, with each prior life form being of comparable
value. From this perspective, the
environment in which
evolution occurs is far more important than any one species that may
happen to arise within that environment. The comparative worth of one
species is based upon how large a danger that species poses to other
species. Since humans have greater capability to harm the environment
and to destroy lesser species, humans constitute the greatest threat to
the well-being of the planet. To the environmentalist,
humans are the natural enemy of nature.
Sagan also stated: “There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more
fitting than to protect the future of our species.... No social
convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no
religious
dogma is more important” (1997, p. 75, emp. added). Such statements
betray a purely materialistic outlook on life. Religious and spiritual
concerns are secondary—or altogether nonexistent. The “number one
concern,” according to Sagan and the environmentalists, is the
preservation of the physical realm.
Though Sagan and his fellow evolutionists disavow any allegiance to
religion—Christian or otherwise—the dedication and devotion to the
environment that they enjoin bears a striking resemblance to the
devotion advocated by those who profess
religious belief. The only difference is the
object of the religious devotion. While manifesting hostility toward the Christian religion, it is apparent that environmentalists
have their own religion:
the worship of nature and the environment. This explains why Sagan would write: “The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be
cherished” (1980, p. 103, emp. added). To say that the Earth needs to be “cherished,” i.e.,
loved,
suggests distorted sensibilities that are unaided by divine insight.
God has instructed humans to love Him, each other, His law, and truth.
But He never has told us to love rocks, dirt, plants, and animals—or to
hug trees.
To summarize, several assumptions inhere in radical environmentalism:
the Creator depicted in the Bible does not exist; the Universe is
eternal; the created order has no planned, overriding purpose; man is
the ultimate offending culprit in his ability to destroy the planet; and
the survival of the planet’s features (plants, animals, atmosphere,
etc.)
depends on man—not on any higher power.
THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE
In stark contrast, the Bible affirms two crucial principles that should
shape our understanding of the environment. First, God created the
Earth for a specific purpose:
to provide human beings with the appropriate environment in which to decide their eternal destiny.
God created humans to be free moral agents, to experience earthly life
as their one and only probationary period, with their fate in eternity
being determined by their response to God during this earthly life.
Hence, the Earth is as good (for the purpose God had in creating it) as
any possible world, in that it was created to be a “vale of soul-making”
for human beings (Warren, 1972, p. 19; cf. Genesis 1:31; Psalm 65:9;
104:24; Ecclesiastes 12:13).
God created the planet to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). He declared His intention that human beings were to
rule and have domination over the Earth’s resources. Referring to humans, He stated: “[L]et them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle,
over all the earth
and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26,
emp. added). He instructed humans to “fill the earth and
subdue it” (Genesis 1:28, emp. added). The Hebrew term for “subdue” (
kah-vash)
means to bring into submission by force (Oswalt, 1980, 1:430). The
psalmist echoed these very directives when he praised God by saying,
“You [God] have made him [man] to have
dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things
under his feet”
(Psalm 8:6, emp. added). God stressed human domination in even stronger
terms after the Flood: “[T]he fear of you [humans] and the dread of you
shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all
that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given
into your hand. Every moving thing that lives
shall be food for you. I have given you
all things,
even as the green herbs” (Genesis 9:2-3, emp. added). God obviously
intended for humans to make use of Earth’s natural resources, including
animals and plants, in order to live, survive, develop, and progress—all
in preparation for eternity.
Second, not only did God initially set up the environment to fulfill
its divinely designated purpose, placing within it all necessary
variables for sustaining it until He decides to terminate the physical
realm, but He also
continues to sustain and maintain it.
The Bible has a great deal to say about the role that Jesus played at
the Creation (e.g., John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2). He continues to have a
relationship with the physical Universe by ensuring that it remains
intact and functional. Paul referred to the “one Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things, and through whom
we live”
(1 Corinthians 8:6, emp. added). Paul also stated: “For by Him all
things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth.... All
things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all
things, and in Him
all things consist” (Colossians
1:16-17, emp. added). The psalmist insisted that when God spoke the
physical Universe into existence, the constituent elements of the
created order “
stood fast” and “
were established,” God having “
made a decree” with them (33:9; 148:5-6, emp. added). The Hebrews writer claimed that Jesus is “
upholding all things by the word of His power” (1:3, emp. added). Peter said that “the heavens and the earth which now exist are
kept in store
by the same word” (2 Peter 3:7, emp. added). The terms in these verses
connote the idea of preserving, governing, regulating, and
superintending the created order (Nicoll, 1900, 4:251-252). In other
words, deity continues to maintain the order, harmony, and well-being of
the whole creation—the vast Universe as well as planet Earth (Barnes,
2005 reprint, p. 27). We can be assured: the environment will remain
intact and suitable for life for as long as God intends. He is the great
Sustainer.
ENVIRONMENTALISM’S INCONSISTENCIES
The environmentalist viewpoint is fraught with self-contradiction. We
are being told that due to human interference, global warming and the
“greenhouse effect” are occurring, and that the Earth’s temperature is
increasing (e.g., Sagan, 1997, pp. 105ff.). A recent
National Geographic article sounds the typical alarmist cry:
The planet is heating up—and fast. Glaciers are
melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife
is scrambling to keep pace. It’s becoming clear that humans have caused
most of the past century’s warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as
we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are
higher now than in the last 650,000 years.... What will we do to slow
this warming? How will we cope with the changes we’ve already set into
motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it...hangs in the balance (“What Is...?” n.d., emp. added).
Yet we also have been terrorized with the idea that our actions are “
lowering the surface temperature of our planet” (Sagan, 1980, p. 103). Ironically, a 1974
TIME
magazine article reported a three-decade-long cooling of atmospheric
temperatures and other “weather aberrations” that “may be the harbinger
of another ice age” (“Another Ice Age?”). Insisting that “telltale signs
are everywhere,” as expected, one of the culprits responsible for the
threat was identified as man, since “dust and other particles released
into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be
blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of
the earth” (“Another Ice Age?”). The 1974 article concluded: “Whatever
the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious,
if not catastrophic.
Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight
hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climate balance, and cool the
planet enough to send it sliding down the road to
another ice age within only a few hundred years”
(“Another Ice Age?,” emp. added). So which is it? Ice age or global
warming? Since yesterday’s science is today’s superstition, how wary
ought we to be regarding the bold claims of today’s “science”?
Nature vs. Itself
The absurdity of the environmentalists’ claim—that humans are harsh and
insensitive in their treatment of the environment—becomes especially
apparent, even whimsical, when one simply observes
nature’s treatment of itself.
For example, the Katmai National Park is home to the world’s largest
grizzly bears, commonly referred to as Alaskan Brown Bears. Because of
their rich salmon diet, these bears grow to over 1,000 pounds in weight,
making them the world’s largest land predators. Philip Greenspun gave
the following eyewitness report of the bears’ eating ritual in the
Brooks River:
Dominant
bears occupy prime positions on top of the part of the falls where
salmon jump every few seconds. When the salmon are running well, every
five minutes a bear will catch a fish in his teeth and hold it firmly
enough that blood begins to flow as the fish flops around. If there are
plenty of salmon, the bear goes after only the fatty skin, brain, and
roe, removing these parts during a gruesome minute or so. The salmon may
remain alive for much or all of its consumption. Why do you think they
call them animals? (1993).
Notice the carnage, the waste, the brutality, the selfish competition
between bears, and the flagrant insensitivity to both the salmon and the
environment. But this one example is
typical of the phenomena inherent throughout the animal kingdom.
The planet, itself, is equally destructive. The largest volcanic
eruption in recorded history occurred in 1815 in Tambora, Indonesia,
killing an estimated 92,000 people, thousands of species of wildlife,
and spewing (as far as 800 miles) 150 times more ash than the 1980
eruption of Mt. St. Helens (“Tambora, Sumbawa...,” n.d.). Hot,
pyroclastic flows poured into the ocean, scalding sea life and causing
additional explosions. Man and animal suffered cataclysmic
devastation—due to starvation, disease, and hunger—earning the
designation the “Year without a Summer.” Daily minimum temperatures were
abnormally low in the Northern Hemisphere from late spring to early
autumn. Famine was widespread because of crop failures (“Tambora,
Sumbawa...”). The renowned volcano Krakatau (frequently misstated as
Krakatoa) caused more than 36,000 fatalities, as devastating tsunamis
inundated the coastlines of Sumatra and Java (“Krakatau, Sunda...,”
n.d.). These are only two of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volcanic
eruptions that have unleashed massive environmental destruction through
the centuries.
Consider the damage inflicted on the environment by the earthquake that killed
830,000 people
in Shensi, China in 1556 (“Most Destructive Known...,” 2007). Only
three years ago (December 26, 2004) the earthquake that generated the
great Indian Ocean tsunami is estimated to have released the energy of
23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs
(“The Deadliest Tsunami...?,” 2005). More than a quarter million people
were killed and millions more in 11 countries were displaced from their
homes in South Asia and East Africa (“Most Destructive Known...”). The
violent movement of sections of the Earth’s crust (the tectonic plates)
created a rupture which the
U.S. Geological
Survey estimates was more than 600 miles long, displacing the seafloor
above the rupture by perhaps 10 yards horizontally and several yards
vertically. The displacement of such an enormous amount of water sent
powerful shock waves in every direction, moving trillions of tons of
rock along hundreds of miles, causing the planet to shudder, destroying
thousands of miles of coastline and submerging entire islands
permanently (“The Deadliest Tsunami...?,” 2005). Here was catastrophic
environmental damage to plant, animal, marine, and human life.
The natural positioning of the Huang He (Yellow) River in China has
caused it to overflow its banks many times in history, resulting in
massive environmental damage (“The World’s Worst Floods,” n.d.). The
human death toll of one such occurrence in 1931 was estimated to be from
1 to 3.7 million. Another in 1887 killed between 900,000 and two
million (“The World’s Worst Floods”). The impact on plant and animal
life was enormous. Hurricanes are no less destructive to the
environment. On November 13, 1970, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)
experienced the deadliest hurricane on record, flooding low lying areas
and killing at least half a million people—with some estimates rising as
high as one million (“The Ten Worst...,” n.d.).
On March 18, 1925, the deadliest tornado in
U.S.
history began in southeastern Missouri, crossed through southern
Illinois, and then turned into southwestern Indiana, killing 625 people
and injuring more than 2,000 others. Property damage was assessed at
$16.5 million—$1.7 billion in today’s dollars. The tornado left a 219
mile track—the longest ever recorded (“The Deadliest
U.S...,” n.d.). Once again, havoc was wreaked on plant and animal life.
Volcanoes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis—the list
goes on and on. The powerful energy, awesome force, and mind-boggling
destruction that nature has inflicted on itself and Earth’s inhabitants
has been ongoing—a perpetual pattern of catastrophe. Yet, as God
planned, life goes on—until the day He decides to call the human
population to account before His judgment seat.
Humans vs. Nature
Have humans tampered with nature and caused unnecessary harm to the
environment? Certainly. Instances are legion. In 1876, the introduction
of Kudzu, a fast-growing vine from Japan, ultimately led to the
destruction of valuable forests by blocking sunlight from trees. The
vine, which can grow 60 feet each year, and has blanketed the South, is
virtually impervious to herbicides. Yet, many positive benefits have
emerged, including remarkable soil erosion control, a nutritious food
source for Angora goats, the creation of products such as baskets,
paper, jelly, syrup, and hay bales, and even progress on the development
of new medicines (see “The Amazing Story...,” 2002). In 1859, Thomas
Austin brought 24 rabbits from England to Australia, where they
multiplied uncontrollably, causing considerable ecological ramifications
(see Kellett, 2006; “Environmental Damage...,” 2001). Many other
non-native plants and animals have been introduced into non-indigenous
habitats, with a variety of consequences (see “Non-Native Species,”
2002).
No one knows how many plant and animal species have gone extinct since
the beginning of Creation. No doubt, the number would be staggering. The
obliteration of the dinosaur population alone would account for the
eradication of large numbers. It is estimated that, just in the past
2,000 years, more than a hundred kinds of
birds and more than a hundred kinds of
mammals
have disappeared from the Earth (see “Extinct and Near-Extinct...,”
1966). Included are the Dodo Bird of the Indian Ocean island of
Mauritius, the Tasmanian Tiger Wolf of mainland Australia, and New
Zealand’s giant, flightless bird, the Moa (see “Endangered Species,”
2003; “Extinct Animals,” 2001). These estimates do not include the
extinction of species of reptiles, fish, and insects. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the Threatened and Endangered Species System (
TESS)
for both plants and animals. Presently, within the United States alone,
388 animal species and 598 plant species are listed as “endangered”
(see “Threatened...,” 2003). While humans sometimes are blamed for
causing certain species to diminish, no one knows in every case of
animal or plant extinction whether humans or nature’s own agents were
responsible. One fact is clear: the extinction of plants and animals
through the centuries has not upset the realm of nature and the
environment to the extent that the human race has been endangered or
threatened with extinction itself—
we’re still here! (Interestingly, many
new species of both plants and animals have come into existence by humans implementing ingenious breeding procedures.)
On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef in
Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons
of oil, which impacted 1,300 miles of shoreline. Exxon claims to have
spent $2.1 billion on a cleanup effort that included 10,000 workers,
about 1,000 boats, and 100 airplanes and helicopters. Though the
reparative response to the crisis was massive, entailing exorbitant
expenditures, “many believe that wave action from winter storms did more
to clean the beaches than all of the human effort involved” (see
“Frequently Asked Questions...,” n.d.). In fact, human efforts had to be
adjusted when it was determined that spraying hot water on the
oil-laden beaches using high-pressure hoses was cooking bacteria and
other microscopic organisms, killing both plants and animals, thereby
slowing the recovery that might otherwise have been achieved by nature
itself (see Piper, 1993, pp. 61ff.). In 1992, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (
NOAA) studied the
diffusion of the oil and concluded that “the great majority of the oil
either evaporated, dispersed into the water column or degraded
naturally” (“Lingering...,” 2003). In fact, years ago the National
Marine Fisheries Services reported that “the vast majority of the spill
area now appears to have recovered” (“
NMFS
Office...,” 2002). Though touted by environmentalists at the time as an
ecological disaster of catastrophic proportions, the Valdez spill does
not even rank in the top 50 internationally.
Similarly, the release of oil into the Pacific Ocean by damaged and
sunken battleships and aircraft carriers during the great naval battles
of World War
II was considerable. Nazi U-boats
disrupted Allied activities in the Atlantic Ocean by sinking large
numbers of tankers and supply ships, causing large quantities of oil and
hazardous substances to be spilled, creating slicks and coating
Caribbean beaches. No cleanup crews, with their hard hats and bright
yellow
HAZMAT suits blasting coastlines with
high-pressure hoses and detergent guns, were mobilized to rectify the
mess. Yet the Caribbean beaches today essentially are pristine. What
happened to all
that oil—with no environmentalists to come to the rescue?
REALITY CHECK
Salmon-grabbing bears, forest-gobbling vines, grassland-grubbing
rabbits, oil-glutting humans—destruction by animals, destruction by
plants, destruction by weather and nature’s own inanimate forces,
destruction by man. Where will it all end? Should we not view our world
and the environment as being in a state of crisis?
Please consider carefully:
God created the Earth to be self-sustaining until it has served its
purpose. It is self-healing. It is resilient and restorative. It
actually rejuvenates itself. The fact is that the greenhouse effect is a
natural phenomenon God set into place. God designed gases in the
atmosphere, like carbon dioxide and water vapor, to remain in balance
and warm the Earth, creating a stable climate for the support of plant,
animal, and human life. Without these gases, Earth would be 40
o to 60
o colder—essentially a frigid desert (cf.
Climate Change..., 1990, p. xxxvii). [
NOTE: Have we forgotten what we learned in our elementary school science class—that the CO
2
expelled by animals and humans is necessary for green plants to produce
oxygen? Far from being an indication of man’s need to “regulate” the
release of carbon dioxide, such environmental symbiosis points to
divine design.]
The Earth is not “fragile” when it comes to human interference. Humans cannot
destroy
the Earth (let alone the Universe). Humans cannot eliminate the ozone
layer. Humans cannot cause permanent, life-threatening global warming.
Human ability to pollute, contaminate, and destroy the environment
cannot begin to compare with the destructive forces of nature itself:
volcanoes, tornados, hurricanes, drought, typhoons, earthquakes, and
floods. The 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines
introduced
20 to 30 megatons of sulfur dioxide and aerosols
into the Earth’s atmosphere, with those materials completely encircling
the Earth in some three months (Sagan, 1997, p. 107). Satellite data
collected indicated that, as a result, “the ozone levels had depleted by
about 15 percent” (Rickman, 1997). In fact, as a direct result of the
large amounts of stratospheric sulfate particles from the Mount Pinatubo
eruption, “
record low global ozone levels were recorded in 1992 and 1993” (“Environmental Indicators...,” n.d., emp. added).
NASA
concluded: “Stratospheric aerosols such as those produced by major
volcanic eruptions are thought to be important catalysts in the chemical
processes leading to the observed ozone losses” (“
NASA’s
Ozone Studies,” n.d.; cf. “Incomplete Recovery...,” 2006). Humans
cannot begin to compete with nature’s impact on itself. We have an
inflated sense of our own importance if we think that
we determine whether the world goes on after we are gone.
The Ultimate Environmental Damage
The evidence indicates that God, Himself, has inflicted vengeance upon
wicked civilizations in the past—to the point of wreaking complete
destruction and devastation on the land itself. The reader is urged to
read the following passages from the Bible: Genesis 13:10; 19:24-25;
Deuteronomy 29:22-24; Psalm 107:33-34; Isaiah 34:8-15; Jeremiah 19:8;
Ezekiel 30:7; Zephaniah 2:13-14. God has not chosen to reveal to us
all
of His dealings with the civilizations of history. We likely would know
nothing about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah if Abraham’s nephew
had not moved there (Genesis 13:12; 19). Could humans possibly inflict
as much damage on the Earth as God did when He flooded the
entire planet
to a depth higher than the highest mountains of that day (Genesis
7:19-20)? The history of humanity and planet Earth has been one of
catastrophism—not evolutionary uniformitarianism or gradualism.
Yet the Earth is still here, the environment is intact, and life continues!
Make no mistake. The Bible certainly teaches the principle of
stewardship and wisdom in the use of resources allotted by God (Matthew
25:14-30; 1 Corinthians 4:2). God, Himself, provides care for His
nonhuman creatures (Job 38:41; Psalm 147:9; Matthew 10:29). He included
animals in His injunction to the Israelites to rest one day per week
(Exodus 20:10; cf. Leviticus 22:27-28; Deuteronomy 22:6-7,10). He
instructed the Israelites to allow their farmland to lie uncultivated
every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). We ought not to be wasteful,
greedy, cruel, or reckless in our handling of Earth’s resources.
However, from a biblical perspective,
the environment must not take precedence or preference over humans.
A balanced and proper perspective realizes that the environment is
purely physical and temporary. Plants, animals, air, water, and the rest
of “mother nature” are not human, and are not to be regarded as such.
Animals, like the rest of the created order, render divinely mandated
services to humans as sources of food and clothing, as well as
transportation and other work-related performance (e.g., Genesis 3:21;
Proverbs 26:3; Mark 1:6; 11:7; 1 Timothy 4:3-5).
People who think that humans are the enemies of Earth, and invariably
destructive to the environment, who think that animals deserve to be
protected and preserved more than people, who think that humans are
above other life forms due to an unfortunate Darwinian accident—since
humans are carnivorous, wasteful, and harmful to the lesser species—have
an incorrect view of reality and a devalued view of human life. They
feel that humans possess no inherent value and worth that surpasses the
rest of the created order (cf. Matthew 10:31; Luke 12:24). But this
passion to preserve the Earth and animal life is essentially the same
idolatry that has plagued humanity throughout most of history. In fact,
this propensity sounds distinctly familiar in light of Paul’s summary of
the long-standing human rejection of the Creator:
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds, and four-footed beasts and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their
hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the
truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:22-25, emp. added).
Our nation’s forefathers—and most Americans until about 50 years ago—would be shocked and appalled that right now in America,
billions of dollars are being spent frivolously serving the creature!
CONCLUSION
The environmentalist possesses enormous arrogance if he thinks he can
control the forces of nature by his paltry tinkering with the created
order—as if he even had the knowledge or wisdom, let alone power, to do
so. Ultimately, this feeble, faltering faux pas manifests willful
ignorance and a lack of faith in the Creator. The environmentalists need
a healthy dose of spiritual reality—the same one Job received when he
thought it necessary to question God’s unfathomable superintendence of
the Universe:
Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird
up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements, since you know?....
You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is
great!.... Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who
reproves God answer it.... Then I will also confess to you, that your own right hand can save you (Job 38:2-5,21; 40:2,14, emp. added).
If there is no God and evolution is true, then humans are no more valuable than rocks, cockroaches—and, yes, cows. So if we
really
want to get serious about saving the planet, simply kill all the cows,
crops, kids, and adults. When humans eliminate God from their thinking
and jettison the biblical worldview, insanity begins to sound sensible.
There’s the real “inconvenient truth.”
The vast majority of the decline of the environment that we see is due
to the normal operations of the laws of thermodynamics which mandate
depletion, breakdown, dissolution, and the ultimate demise of the Earth
and the Universe (see
Miller, 2007, 27[4]:25-31).
That is how God set it up! The material, physical realm was intended to be
temporary—by divine design. Quoting the psalmist, the writer of Hebrews explained:
You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up (1:10-12, emp. added).
In the meantime, God will see to it that our environment remains intact
until it has served the purpose for which He created it. Then, He
Himself, will bring not only the Earth, but the entire Universe, to its
grand and climactic conclusion by means of cosmic meltdown and
dissolution (2 Peter 3:7,10-12). Rather than devoting one’s energies and
resources to preserving the temporal environment and saving “Mother
Earth,” we would do better to devote ourselves to
saving our souls
by cultivating the necessary spiritual attributes for eternal life with
God: “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
and a new earth [i.e., the non-physical realm of heaven—
DM] in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13).
REFERENCES
“1970” (2000),
infoplease, [On-line],
URL: http://www.infoplease.com/year/1970.html.
“The Amazing Story of Kudzu” (2002), [On-line],
URL: http://www.cptr.ua.edu/kudzu/.
“Another Ice Age?” (1974),
TIME, June 24, [On-line],
URL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html.
Barnes, Albert (2005 reprint),
Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (
IPCC), [On-line],
URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm.
“The Deadliest Tsunami in History?” (2005),
National Geographic News, January 7, [On-line],
URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041226_ tsunami.html.
“The Deadliest
U.S. Tornado Outbreaks” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://www.epicdisasters.com/deadlyustornadoes.php.
“Endangered Species” (2003), [On-line],
URL: http://eelink.net/EndSpp/extinction-allknownextinctions.html.
“Environmental Damage by Wild Rabbits in Australia and New Zealand” (2001),
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (
CSIRO), [On-line],
URL: http://www.beaglesunlimited.net/.
“Environmental Indicators: Ozone Depletion” (no date),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [On-line],
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/index.html.
“Extinct Animals (2001), [On-line],
URL: http://www.zoos.50megs.com/extinct.htm.
“Extinct and Near-Extinct Animals” (1966), [On-line],
URL: http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/200-299/nb248.htm.
“Flatulent Kangaroos Could Save Planet” (2007),
Fox News, December 6, [On-line],
URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315586,00.html.
“Frequently Asked Questions About the Spill” (no date),
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, [On-line],
URL: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.cfm.
“Friends of the Earth Flanders and Brussels” (2007), [On-line],
URL: http://www.foei.org/en/who-we-are/groups/flanders.html/?searchterm= ”respected as our Mother”.
Greenspun, Philip (1993),
Travels With Samantha, “Chapter X: Overcharged in Katmai,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.photo.net/samantha/samantha-X.
“Incomplete Recovery Forecast for Earth’s Ozone Layer” (2006),
CBC News, May 3, [On-line],
URL: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/03/ozone-layer060503.html.
Kellett, Mark (2006), “Rabbits in Australia—Who’s the Bunny?,
Australian Heritage, Autumn, [On-line],
URL: http://www.heritageaustralia.com.au/magazine.php?issue=2& article=24/.
“Krakatau, Sunda Strait, Indonesia” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/krakatau/krakatau.html.
Lean, Geoffrey (2006), “Cow ‘Emissions’ More Damaging to Planet than CO
2 from Cars,”
The Independent, December 10, [On-line],
URL: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece.
Leung, Chee Chee (2007), “Human Greed Takes Lion’s Share of Solar Energy,”
The Sidney Morning Herald, July 3, [On-line],
URL: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/human-greed-takes-lions-share-of -solar-energy/2007/07/02/1183351126304.html.
“Lingering Oil” (2003), [On-line],
URL: http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us/facts/lingeringoil.html.
“Major Environmental Laws” (2003), [On-line],
URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/esa.htm.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective
,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, [On-line],
URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
“Most Destructive Known Earthquakes on Record in the World” (2007),
U.S. Geological Survey, [On-line],
URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/most_destructive.php.
“
NASA’s Ozone Studies” (no date),
NASA Facts On-Line, [On-line],
URL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/ ozonestu.htm.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. (1900),
The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
“
NMFS Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration” (2002), [On-line],
URL: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/default.htm.
“Non-Native Species” (2002), [On-line],
URL: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/40.html.
“Norway’s Moose Population in Trouble for Belching” (2007),
Spiegel, August 21, [On-line],
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html.
Oswalt, John N. (1980), “
kabash,”
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Piper, E. (1993),
The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response (Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation).
Rickman, James (1997), “Los Alamos Computer Model Accurately Predicts
Global Climate Effects of Pinatubo Eruption,” Los Alamos National
Laboratory, [On-line],
URL: http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/012297text.html.
Sagan, Carl (1980),
Cosmos (New York: Random House).
Sagan, Carl (1997),
Billions and Billions (New York: Random House).
“Tambora, Sumbawa, Indonesia” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/southeast_asia/ indonesia/tambora.html.
Templeton, Sarah-Kate (2007), “Children ‘Bad for Planet,’”
The Australian, May 7, [On-line],
URL: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html#.
“The Ten Worst Hurricanes Worldwide” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://www.epicdisasters.com/tendeadlyworldhurricanes.php.
“Threatened and Endangered Species System” (2003), [On-line],
URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/html/boxscore.html.
Warren, Thomas B. (1972),
Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
“What Is Global Warming?” (2006),
National Geographic, [On-line],
URL:
http//green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
gw-overview.html?source=G2300&kwid=global warming|780841765.
“The World’s Worst Floods” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://www.epicdisasters.com/worstfloods.php.
For
many hundreds of years, the balance of power in the Ancient Near East
pivoted on a few square miles of the rugged Carmel Range. Practically
speaking, anyone traveling from Egypt in the south, to Anatolia, Assyria
and Babylonia in the north and northeast, had to skirt Mount Carmel or
negotiate one of the three passes through the range. Of these, the most
direct route went through the narrow middle valley, which opened at its
northeastern end on the town of Megiddo and the fertile Jezreel Valley.