Double E's

Environmentalism and evolution that is. I've been thinking about how environmentalism and evolution relate recently and I've come to the conclusion that they really don't relate much at all. In fact, I would say that they are pretty much at opposites to one another.

According to dictionary.com "environmentalism" is
  1. Advocacy for or work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution.
and "evolution" is
  1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Now, there are of course other definitions to these words, but these are the most common and are thus the definitions I would like to focus on today.

There is one type of environmentalists that focus on saving the Earth for future generations. They get distressed with the way we are polluting and destroying everything. I would guess that almost without exception an environmentalist is an evolutionist. It appears to me that these two things are opposed to one another. If everything is evolving, shouldn't the world just adapt to the environment? Why are they so concerned about keeping everything "liveable?" Wouldn't it make more sense to just assume that we would evolve to be able to breath pollution (and maybe we would even evolve to a point where fresh air would kill us)? Sure, people will die in the process, but isn't that what evolution is all about? Hundreds of generations of creatures dying in order to perfect an organ. Evolutionists should not be surprised at that and it makes no sense that they would resist that change.

The other type of environmentalist is the one that views humans as horrible creatures. Their reasoning is that we may be at the top of the food chain, but we got there by deceit. This view holds that the other creatures in the world are much better then we are. If they also hold to evolution, then that doesn't make sense either. Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest. So by definition the very fact that we are on the top of the food chain means that we are the fittest. So why are they so down on themselves that they are there? If we aren't superior then another creature would be at the top of the food chain, and evolution would still be preserved. It is these type of environmentalists that are greatly concerned with the extinction of animals. But if you assume evolution, on what grounds is this concern? Evolution demands the extinction of animals - ones that can't adapt to their environment. So if an animal becomes extinct (even if it is by human hunting) that should be viewed as a natural process of evolution. If a creature disappears because it is hunted to extinction by another animal, we don't bat an eye, but if humans hunt it to extinction then that is cause for great distress. But if humans are nothing more then over-developed animals, how is this distressing? They are just doing what evolution demands that they do.

My whole point in this is to show that environmentalism is contradictory with evolution. In fact, environmentalists must assume the dominion mandate in order to further their cause. Christians should and can be much better environmentalist then evolutionists ever could be. Christians are to have dominion. That means taking care of and protecting. So Christans have a reason for protecting animals from extinction, we have a reason for not poluting our environment. We have a responsiblilty to take care of what we have been given. And we have been given the world. Evolutionists can claim no such thing.

It's about time we as Christians woke up to our responsibility and stop letting the environmentalist beat us in our calling.


Post a Comment

<< Home