Nature has the Right to Evolve?

Regular readers have seen how the secular science industry is supporting leftist causes, and how evolution is the centerpiece on the table. This child wants to keep political matters to other weblogs, but when secularists infuse themselves into policy making, things need to be discussed.

Once again, it should be said that genuine environmental concerns are well in keeping with biblical creation principles, but leftist politicians are taking environmentalism to extremes. Elitists in the secular science industry are joining in to further the agenda.

Range of the Caucasus mountains, Ivan Aivazovsky, 1869
Biblical creationists point out how believers in descent-with-modifications evolution play fast 'n' loose with their definitions. They tend to broaden them so that variation, speciation, and other changes (which are compatible with creation science) are deceitfully termed evolution so people will think that Darwin was right. It's who they are and what they do.

Similar word play is being used when proclaiming nature rights. Not just granting animals personhood status, but also lakes and so forth (see "Animal Rights and Criminality"). Now they are talking about nature, which can mean so many things, and how it has the right to evolve. Nature is not a living thing, you know. Which definitions will they use? As long as the Creator is denied and evolutionary pantheism is involved, everything's great. Irrational and illogical, but great — for them.

The major science journals are growing increasingly woke. The prestigious journal Science, in particular, has swallowed this ideology — including supporting the “nature rights” movement.

The rights of nature — which include geological features — are generally defined as the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” Nature is, of course, not sentient. So, this campaign is really about granting environmental extremists legal standing to enforce their policy desires through litigation as legal guardians serving nature’s best interests.

But the movement has a problem. It is clearly ideological rather than rational.

To read the full article and be amazed, visit "Should We Give Nature “Rights”? A Premier Science Journal Says Yes."