Environmentalism
Some months ago I was listening to a local morning talk-show program. The host brought up an interesting idea about environmentalism and the human condition. I have thought about it on and off since then.
I am religious. I believe in God. I do not believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution or Natural Selection. I believe God created the earth in 6 creative periods. I don't believe it was magic. I believe the creation followed all the laws of the land, physics, geology, etc. etc. I am not a scientist. I believe God made Adam steward over all the earth and its inhabitants and that we should be thoughtful, careful stewards. I don't believe in man-made global warming. I do not believe human beings have the ability or the inclination to destroy the earth. I believe God made man in his own image and that human beings are the superior life on this planet. If this were not so, God would be a dinosaur and they would still be traipsing around ruining the rain forests by eating all the vegetation and tramping down the plants.
Environmentalism is by and large anti-human. Environmentalists by and large work to protect the earth, its plants and animals and show disdain for the homosapien variety of life. One of the goals of environmentalism and the global warming theory (or climate control, or whatever buzzword they are using now) is population control. Read Diane Francis here.
So here is my problem. These are the same people (scientists and others within the science community, environmentalists and what not) who believe in Darwinism. You know, "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST or NATURAL SELECTION." Well, aren't I, a two-legged, bipedal life form, i.e. HUMAN, the fittest? I am. I am. I know I am. So according to Darwin: "Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest." Survival of the Fittest
So what is wrong if I survive at the expense of other life forms on this planet? I can subdue the land, the plants, the animals to aid me in my battle for life. I am clearly superior in doing so. If the other life forms are meant to live, they willadapt evolve in order to improve their ability to battle for their preservation. Thus the ever-popular "theory of evolution" via "natural selection." To summarize Darwin, through the scientist, Ernst Mayr:
It can't work both ways. Either we naturally select ourselves into superiority and other life forms adapt, or die, or evolution and natural selection are not viable scientific theories.
I know which one I am betting on.
I am religious. I believe in God. I do not believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution or Natural Selection. I believe God created the earth in 6 creative periods. I don't believe it was magic. I believe the creation followed all the laws of the land, physics, geology, etc. etc. I am not a scientist. I believe God made Adam steward over all the earth and its inhabitants and that we should be thoughtful, careful stewards. I don't believe in man-made global warming. I do not believe human beings have the ability or the inclination to destroy the earth. I believe God made man in his own image and that human beings are the superior life on this planet. If this were not so, God would be a dinosaur and they would still be traipsing around ruining the rain forests by eating all the vegetation and tramping down the plants.
Environmentalism is by and large anti-human. Environmentalists by and large work to protect the earth, its plants and animals and show disdain for the homosapien variety of life. One of the goals of environmentalism and the global warming theory (or climate control, or whatever buzzword they are using now) is population control. Read Diane Francis here.
So here is my problem. These are the same people (scientists and others within the science community, environmentalists and what not) who believe in Darwinism. You know, "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST or NATURAL SELECTION." Well, aren't I, a two-legged, bipedal life form, i.e. HUMAN, the fittest? I am. I am. I know I am. So according to Darwin: "Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest." Survival of the Fittest
So what is wrong if I survive at the expense of other life forms on this planet? I can subdue the land, the plants, the animals to aid me in my battle for life. I am clearly superior in doing so. If the other life forms are meant to live, they will
Darwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them. These observations and inferences have been summarized by the great biologist Ernst Mayr as follows:
1) Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2) Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
3) Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time.
From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
4) In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
5) Much of this variation is heritable.
From this it may be inferred: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. These advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection. It may be further inferred that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. These observations have been amply demonstrated in biology, and even fossils demonstrate the veracity of these observations. Darwin - Theory of EvolutionIt can't work both ways. Either we naturally select ourselves into superiority and other life forms adapt, or die, or evolution and natural selection are not viable scientific theories.
I know which one I am betting on.
Comments