Idiocricy, Political Correctness, Darwinism, and Eugenics

The Outsider (DB), has an excellent post on these matters.

“Idiocricy:” A Bad Comedy or Covert Eugenics (Genetics) Propaganda?

Advertisements

Environmentalism, Evolution, ID, Creationism and Worldviews

My coauthor DB (The Outsider) recently wrote the following comment:

Although global warming now, is most certainly, and definitely related to the sins of man against the Earth, it was related to natural processes then (of which man is not a part of).

You bring up an interesting point here!

A) If everything exists due to natural process, or NO GOD, then natural process rules: right?

B) If natural process rules, then how can man be responsible for global warming (except in a natural way: either harmful or beneficial), which is due to the natural process and therefore, very natural?

C) Yet, I hear advocates of naturalism claiming that man is destroying his environment. How can that be, when man is merely part of a natural process that he doesn’t control, nor fully understand?

D) In fact, according to naturalists, man is created by natural forces, so how can he control his natural surroundings which created him?

E) Is naturally created man more powerful than the natural process which created him? If so, how can that be?

F) Is the natural process not “fit” enough to “survive” the destructive nature of its own creation, man?

I’ll add a point, DB if you don’t mind, to your excellent list.

G). If man brings about another episode of catastrophic global warming, unnaturally (or naturally since man is a part of nature?), all of that natural death would contribute to evolution (a natural process).

DB wrote:

F) Is the natural process not “fit” enough to “survive” the destructive nature of its own creation, man?

If not, I suppose it (the environment) will in turn select a new species, which may be less fit than man, so that it (nature) may survive after (if) it recovers.

While I think man has not been a good steward of his environment (what does that mean from a naturalistic perspective?), I think our current state of technological advancement (internal- combustion-engine and all), is better than horse dung and sewage throughout the streets. As an irrelevant side note, my wife loves horses. I hate them. I’ve been bucked off, scraped off by tree limbs, stepped on, horse fell at a dead run (with me on it), and so forth (to each his/her own). I ride a motorcycle now (brainless “unnatural” horse?). I like looking at them from a distance at times, but rarely admit to such to my wife. 😉

For me, the anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria is tied to the entire naturalistic fairy tale. It goes back to the assumption of no atmosphere on Earth, followed, by a primordial atmosphere, and the episode of Natural catastrophic warming cited in my post. From an ID perspective, I think you could go either way. From a perspective of Creationism, I think I realize that man is not so powerful as to be able to completely destroy what God has created.

I understand that some may differ with me here, and that’s okay. I do know that aspects of the environmental movement are rife with former communists looking for a new cause. That doesn’t invalidate the movement, but it should cause some additional reflection about certain mouth pieces (atheistic communist propaganda).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Global-Warming-Pack-DVD-Book,5741,263.aspx?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=storeBanner&utm_content=globalWarming&utm_campaign=globalWarming