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

Freedom, Creationism, ID, and Naturalistic Evolution

A recent commenter, Mynym, wrote:

People who believe in creationism can advance science and create political systems in which great freedom exists. That is simply a matter of history. So what if they did achieve political dominance, it’s not necessarily a great danger which will stop Progress as we know it. It should also be noted that people who believe in creationism can also be moral degenerates who create despotic systems in which freedom hardly exists. Yet an interesting question is whether or not those who believe in forms of Nature based paganism in ancient times and philosophic naturalism and the Darwinian creation myth in modern times can create political systems in which great freedom exists. Given their philosophy and their history it seems that they cannot. They have a history of tending towards totalitarianism just as their philosophy tends towards a supposedly total form of knowledge which tends towards determinism and allows for no “gaps.”

Indeed. Creationism does not entail despotism or totalitarianism. So far an atheistic aspect of governmental structure has entailed these things. Although I do not say that it must. In reality, it has. And Creationists can be as evil as anyone else. Of that, I do not doubt.

Those who believe that mind and intelligence don’t “exist” and have an impact on the natural world have always tended towards having their own minds degenerate to the level of psychologists working for totalitarian governments based on the false view that conditioning is all that matters.

The following is attributed to Pavlov, the Russian physiologist, who advanced ‘classical conditioning’:

Conscious until his very last moment, Pavlov asked one of his students to sit beside his bed and to record the circumstances of his dying. He wanted to create unique evidence of subjective experiences of this terminal phase of life. The great scientific courage of Pavlov is exhibited by this story: he tried to learn, and to increase knowledge of physiology, even on his deathbed.

(1)

The great American behaviorist, and atheist, BF Skinner wrote,

Cognitive science is the creation science of psychology, as it struggles to maintain the position of mind or self.

And yet, cognitive psychology is the dominant view of modern psychology. BF Skinner did not believe in anything like free will. The only thing that was important was reinforcement and punishment. Where is the room for personal freedom in such a position that is so consistent with naturalistic evolution?