Conservation-Evolution Cognitive Dissonance
As people celebrate Lenin's birthday and Earth Day, many well-meaning people focus on doing things for the environment. That is obviously a good thing that Christians and creationists can endorse, but it also has leftist political overtones and a wagon train-load of naturalistic undercurrents.
 |
| Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) image credit: Flickr / Bart Hiddink (CC BY 2.0) |
People are conflicted over imported (often invasive) and "native" species, and which ones are to be controlled by humans. After all, we evolved better and reached the top of the food chain, right? We're in power, so accept it. However, some think that humans are an invasive species on the planet itself and should be controlled or even eliminated (see "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans".) Then again, we're supposed to look after our planet because it's our responsibility. But how can evolution and naturalism provide ethics and morality?
Of course, Christians and creationists know (or should know) that we are not co-evolved critters, we were created in the image of God. We are stewards — caretakers — if this blue marble on which we live.
There are of course important considerations about managing the environment from a Christian stewardship perspective, and the importance of valuing humanity and social well-being. But the philosophy of naturalism cannot answer these on its own terms. Worryingly, the way in which some naturalistic thinkers speak of controlling where particular animals and plants should live, has echoes of twentieth century eugenics programmes that were enacted against certain human communities. Environmentalists also speak of the need for greater social control over human communities to limit growth; in some cases, it seems to be because nature has become an idol to them.
You can read the entire article by breaking ground at "The conflict between conservation and Darwinian natural selection".