The topic of extinction is on the politics board right now and it made me think about religious perspectives on environmentalism and stewardship of the Earth. I grew up in a church that talked about the need for stewardship, but never in depth or seriously. Still, it was the official line. I was a bit surprised when I started coming across Christians who felt that God would take care of it all and it didn't really matter what humans did to the environment (yes, I'm being reductive in summing up their position for the sake of brevity). I'm just curious how folks look at things like environmental problems and issues like human-driven extinction from a religious or philosophical position.

Oh, and for those who don't want to wander over to politics, the issue is the so-called Sixth Mass Extinction in which it's estimated up to 75% of species could be gone in the near future.

Are you referring to environmentalism as a religion, or something else?

Quote:

---

Saint Hubertus (German) is honored among sport-hunters as the originator of ethical hunting behavior.

During Hubert's religious vision, the Hirsch (German: deer) is said to have lectured Hubertus into holding animals in higher regard and having compassion for them as God's creatures with a value in their own right. For example, the hunter ought to only shoot when a humane, clean and quick kill is assured. He ought shoot only old stags past their prime breeding years and to relinquish a much anticipated shot on a trophy to instead euthanize a sick or injured animal that might appear on the scene. Further, one ought never shoot a female with young in tow to assure the young deer have a mother to guide them to food during the winter. Such is the legacy of Hubert who still today is taught and held in high regard in the extensive and rigorous German and Austrian hunter education courses.

---

Saint Hubert

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Are you referring to environmentalism as a religion, or something else?

---

No

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Are you referring to environmentalism as a religion, or something else?

---

No

---

Not a yes/no question.

Well, I will try to address, but forgive me if I don't do so adequately based on your questions.

Obviously we are called to be good stewards of His creation. Animals, environment, ecosystems, etc. We are to oversee and manage. Any needless destruction of these, whether for profit, fun, war, etc would be wrong, IMO. If our actions lead to the extinction of one of His creations, then our actions are wrong. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to pretend to talk w/ any certainty over issues like global warming and man's role in it.

On a side note, this makes me think of an issue that I differ from many other Christian pacifists on. There's a significant portion of Christian pacifists that, much like Tolstoy, extend it to animal life as well. As a result, they are vegan. I don't think veganism is wrong, but I also don't think eating meat is wrong either. I do see the point they have in that it wasn't until post-flood that Noah was instructed to now eat meat (Gen 9:3). Genesis talks about how every seed-bearing plant was given to man for food (Gen 1:29). So the implication is that from creation to the flood, man was to eat of the seed-bearing plants. But that changed post-flood. Not to mention, Christ ate fish (Luke 24:42-43).

Quote:

---

issues like human-driven extinction

---

Is this a general topic, or do you have a specific species in mind? Certainly humans have eradicated select species (passenger pigeon comes to mind), but most extinction-risk species tend to be biological obligates at risk due to habitat destruction (local level). Gregarious species tend to tolerate disturbance well and adapt to human-induced pressures.

And that doesn't address sacrifices. God favored Abel's which was animals.

A person cannot do anything in the modern era without affecting animals, environment, ecosystems, etc. Pipelines, transmission lines, wind turbine generators, battery manufacturing, transportation, fences, smog, landfills, tree harvesting, housing, any plastic product, etc.

Not saying go dump chemicals into a creek, but if you think any action we do that leads to the extinction of a creature is wrong, stop typing on the internet.

Momentarily forgetting that most of the AGW / environmentalism charade is not based on genuine concern for humanity, but instead creates antithetical solutions via regulations on personal liberty, properties, and free markets.....


....how do atheists know for certain that the proposed destruction of the Earth isn't simply the next step in the evolutionary process?


....which then begs the question, if there is free will, and the "destruction" (aka non-compliance with established environmental regulations which will benefit some through redistributionist policies) of the Earth is wrong, are atheists then taking a moral stance against evolution?




(To answer the question from my Christian / Biblical worldview though, I believe God created the heavens and the Earth per Genesis 1:1. We should admire God's creation as it bears witness to HIM and I'm all for clean living within reason. That being said, in Revelation 21:1 God creates everything anew at the culmination of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ from the New Jerusalem).

AggieRain said:

---

Quote:

---

issues like human-driven extinction

---

Is this a general topic, or do you have a specific species in mind? Certainly humans have eradicated select species (passenger pigeon comes to mind), but most extinction-risk species tend to be biological obligates at risk due to habitat destruction (local level). Gregarious species tend to tolerate disturbance well and adapt to human-induced pressures.

---

I'm thinking of the loss of amphibian species and species of bats, specifically. Also the loss of a lot of the remaining megafauna.

AstroAg17 said:

---

TampaBayAg said:

---

....how do atheists know for certain that the proposed destruction of the Earth isn't simply the next step in the evolutionary process?


....which then begs the question, if there is free will, and the "destruction" (aka non-compliance with established environmental regulations which will benefit some through redistributionist policies) of the Earth is wrong, are atheists then taking a moral stance against evolution?

---

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

---

Eh, your baby killing refute was pretty stupid once your axioms you so cleverly spent hours on went nowhere.

Quote:

---

Darg and especially K2 do that often and its commendable.

---

Indeed. Where has darg been, btw?

God gave man dominion over the earth and the animals on it. Christians (and Jews I suspect) are to be good stewards of the earth and its abundance. If species are being eradicated as a result of a particular person's or a specific uniform group's malfeasance or non-feasance, then I could see an argument for that bejng sinful. Assigning the guilt of sin to mankind generally because a tribe in Brazil is cutting down trees for farmable land doesn't seem to indict humantiy.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I've only spent hours on a post a few times; that wasn't one of them. I don't think it's a negative to put time into clearly stating your points though, and I think we should appreciate when others do it. Darg and especially K2 do that often and its commendable.

I definitely think it's better than copying something you read on a website and passing it off as your own, then claiming to be a "bird geek" when it's pointed out that you clearly were just regurgitating things you didn't understand.

---

You mean when I offered to send 3 of Dr. Alan Feduccia 's books to anyone on here free of charge? No takers. What a surprise!

Quote:

---

Marco, I did read it. I also read AIG (which Ham did focus on the fact that this is an incomplete fossil specimen and should we really call this a dinosaur given the short sample and location, but I thought I went a little further).
In addition to AIG (which is the best in terms of evangelism, there are some better suited Christian research institutions when is comes to metaphysical apologetics from a creationist worldview, such as ICR and Dr. Jason Lisle).

I don't know if you all are familiar with Dr. Alan Feduccia or not, but he did some guest lecturing at TAMU a little over a dozen years ago. He's a renown ornithologist and a well published evolutionary biologist ( I should preface that he is an atheist and not a Christian, so he cannot simply be written off as an "idiot" that "fears science"). He has written several interesting books, which include studies on the origin of flight, the structure and evolution of vertebrae, and the primary evolution of birds.

The feathered dinosaur may have existed, but Feduccia does not believe there is a ancestry link between dinosaur and birds. There's a Confuciusornis specimen named for Dr. Feduccia and he uses it in his research and publications as he has negated other discovered dinosaur feather fossil remnants, which co-existed with his specimen. If nothing more, Dr. Feduccia's ornithology work is both entertaining and impressive, and worthy of the read for anyone that has an interest in birds. However, when you couple with the fact that he's an evolutionary biologist that denies the Theropod Hypotheses, he's made a hell of a lot of enemies in academia (but is a brilliant researcher, nonetheless and I admire him for not caving on his antithesis position)

Cosmos published an article last year on the feathered dinosaur fossil hoaxes (and / or false findings and publications) through either fake fossils or faulty paleontology. Anyone remember Sinosauropteryx among others? This paleontologist group might be legit, but this is hardly the first feathered dinosaur proclamation.

I will personally send a copy of Dr. Feduccia's books to anyone interested. I recommend any of these:

• Riddle of the Feather Dragons
• The Origin and Evolution of Birds
• Structure and Evolution of Vertebates

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

You can bump the thread if you want to rehash those arguments. That guy probably thinks you're an idiot too.

---

I think I already addressed Feduccia. He's a complete outlier at this point with zero fossil evidence to support his own claims. Hell, his claims have evolved over time from, "Those aren't feathers, that's collagen," to "Velociraptors aren't actually Dinosaurs, they're covergently evolved birds that just really, really look like Dinosaurs." I'm waiting for him to say that T. Rex wasn't a Dinosaur, which he'll have to say to be consistent given the feathers found on Yutyrannus.

JJMt said:

---

Good point, but an evolving belief shouldn't automatically be used as a negative attribute, as Sapper used it, should it?

---

The belief isn't evolving, just the excuse to defend his presupposition.

JJMt said:

---

Good point, but an evolving belief shouldn't automatically be used as a negative attribute, as Sapper used it, should it?

---

His overall conclusions remain the same, he's just changed the argument, and still without supporting evidence. You should see how he defines Dinosauria. He refuses to think of them other than as large, slow, dim-witted reptiles. Since birds aren't large, slow, or dim-witted, he assumes they cannot be Dinosaurs.

1) God called us to be good stewards of the land. So the concept is valid. What that means is debatable, of course.

2) That 75% extinction number is suspect, I think. I'd like to see it broken down a bit more. Does that analysis specifically identify each species that is endangered of going extinct, and giving it a p value? It feels like some guy wanting to make a name for himself throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.

3) Isn't mass extinction always happening? What percentage of the mammals on this earth existed 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. I know that the rate (75% in just a few years) is unsustainable, but the general concept of mass extinction isn't really new, nor necessarily undesirable.

BusterAg said:

---

1) God called us to be good stewards of the land. So the concept is valid. What that means is debatable, of course.

2) That 75% extinction number is suspect, I think. I'd like to see it broken down a bit more. Does that analysis specifically identify each species that is endangered of going extinct, and giving it a p value? It feels like some guy wanting to make a name for himself throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.

3) Isn't mass extinction always happening? What percentage of the mammals on this earth existed 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. I know that the rate (75% in just a few years) is unsustainable, but the general concept of mass extinction isn't really new, nor necessarily undesirable.

---

1. I'm interested in the debate. There seems to be an extreme position like Tampa's that says, "God allows what happens to happen and he'll make it better," or various moderate to very environmentalist positions.

2. It's obviously a projection but it's based on regional studies of populations and biodiversity in the most diverse areas. What's notable is that we aren't talking about 75% of the planet losing its species, but rather that the most diverse areas are also the ones getting hit hardest by human activity, be it the rain forests or the coral reefs.

3. Extinction is always happening. Mass extinction is a technical definition of a period where the rate of extinction far outweighs the normal background extinction rate. Species are always evolving or going extinct, so we never have a period without any extinction. The issue is a sudden (geologically speaking) change that drastically limits biodiversity. Those events take tens of millions of years to fully recover from.

JJMt said:

---

Good point, but an evolving belief shouldn't automatically be used as a negative attribute, as Sapper used it, should it?

---

No, and I don't really know anything about Feduccia either. I just wanted to undermine the reasons and assumptions human beings use to come to their beliefs - myself included. We're a twisted, self important lot and we don't know *****

Cheers!