Ecology, Shamanism, Science, and Christianity – Part 4

Irrationality of Environmental Causes

The human conscience stands as a firm witness against Darwinism and the entire eco­logical movement which is based upon it. Even the most fanatical defenders of evolution contradict it in their daily lives. To be consistent, evolutionists ought to shut down all hospi­tals, cease all medications, and let the weak die. After all, evolution requires that only the fittest survive. But man is compelled by conscience to be compassionate because he is made in the image of a God who “is love.”

Medically prolonging the lives of those with genetic disabilities or diseases works against evolution, for it allows such persons to reproduce and pass on their defects to subsequent generations and thereby weakens the race. The sooner those with deficiencies of every kind die, the better for the survival of our species!

If stopping all assistance to the ill so that only the “fittest survive” sounds harsh, then blame nature—that’s her way. Don’t blame the personal, loving, and gracious Creator who has given us the capacity to be compassionate. Nor would letting the weak die without any assistance seem harsh if we were a product of nature. The evolutionist’s attempt to have it both ways—denying a personal Creator yet insisting upon morals and compassion which can’t come from nature—betrays the lie that is taught as fact in public schools.

On their TV series, Joseph Campbell tells Bill Moyers that “the impulses of nature are what give authenticity to life, not the rules coming from a supernatural authority….” ^[1] On the contrary, the “impulses of nature” give us the tooth and claw law of the jungle. The personal Creator commands us to love one another. If evolution were true, then whatever man did, from muggings to murder to war, would be a natural act against which no com­plaint could be raised. Police, courts, prisons, and criminal accusations would have to be eliminated. If man is a highly evolved animal, then no complaint can be made on moral grounds against anything he does any more than against any other animal.

A Plea for Some Rational Thinking!

There is no right or wrong in nature. Clearly it is not “wrong” for a volcano to spew forth poisonous gases. Whatever nature and her offspring do is simply “natural.” If man is a product of nature through evolution, then whatever he does must likewise be natural. Therefore it cannot be wrong for a man-made factory or aerosols to spew forth pollution, and if we were part of nature we wouldn’t make rules against pollution. There would be no concern for the ecology and no environmental movement whatsoever if man were really the product of evolution.

As for all the furor that is raised over the possible extinction of a species, such as thespotted owl, hasn’t evolution been doing away with species for millions of years? Nor has any species ever tried to rescue another species from extinction. Then why should man be the first to do so? By destroying creatures standing in his way, man, as the ultimate preda­tor, would only be fulfilling his evolutionary purpose as the “fittest” species which is able to “survive” at the expense of all others.

To stop loggers from felling trees because it might cause the spotted owl to become extinct is to work against the natural forces of evolution! In fact, it would be interference with nature to prevent a hunter, if he is truly part of nature, from shooting a buffalo or an­other man. Why should a man be prevented any more than a wolf or coyote or lion from killing his prey?

Honest logic discredits the environmental movement and the evolutionary theory behind it. One cannot believe both in evolution and ecological preservation of species or habitats. There should be concern neither for “endangered species” nor for the ecological well-being of this planet. If evolution is a fact, then if man, as a result of the evolution of his brain and nervous system and psyche, destroys the Earth in a nuclear holocaust or some other ecological disaster, in the big picture of the evolving universe that must be accepted as progress, since it was brought about by evolution

On the other hand, the mere fact that man can reason about ecology and survival of species, including himself, indicates that he is not the product of such forces, but, having the power to interfere with them, must have a higher origin. Obviously he didn’t make himself.

Clearly, man is not the evolutionary offspring of nature but was created in the image of God. Only an intelligent Creator could have brought mankind into existence. That being the case, the solution to human problems is not in getting back to nature and listening to the earth, as we are being told, but in getting in touch with the God who made us and in sub­mitting to His will.

Notes

1. ↑ Phil Jackson and Hugh Delehanty, </nowiki>Sacred Hoops, (Hyperion, 1995), p. 173.

Read Part 5