< --adsense-->
\nanswersingenesis.org
\nChristianity and the environment
\nby Carl Wieland
\n\u2018What should we think of the Greenhouse Effect?\u2019 AiG speakers often face questions like this on environmental matters. It is helpful, even vital, to view such things from a Biblical perspective. But in a complex world, it may not be possible to give a rigidly \u2018for\u2019 or \u2018against\u2019 Christian response. Biblical principles are unchanging, but the situations we face, and the information available, are not.
\nImagine you are a bureaucrat in 19th-century South America, contemplating the vast, seemingly limitless expanse of the Amazon jungle. Some poor villagers ask you for a permit to clear an acre for their crops. Or you\u2019re the same bureaucrat in the distant future; some rich estate-owner asks if he can clear one of the last remaining stands of Amazonian trees, home of some of the rarest and most beautiful of God\u2019s creatures, because they obstruct the breeze to his mansion. Presumably your response would be different in each case!
\nThe Greenhouse Effect
\n\u2018Greenhouse\u2019 dominates thinking on the environment. Certain gases in the atmosphere, chiefly water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), trap heat from the Earth, inhibiting its radiation to outer space.
\nAnimals and humans breathe out CO2 as they \u2018burn\u2019 carbon-containing foodstuffs. Plants, in turn, powered by sunlight, absorb the CO2. Along with hydrogen from water, it is used to \u2018build\u2019 plant structures. (The process releases oxygen from the water, replenishing the oxygen consumed by animals.) Chop down a tree and burn it, and you \u2018turn\u2019 carbon into CO2. But during the tree\u2019s lifetime of growth, it \u2018mopped up\u2019 an equivalent amount of CO2, so the books roughly balance.
\nIn the modern world, however, the books are becoming unbalanced in two ways. First, through burning large amounts of \u2018fossil fuels\u2019 (coal and oil). The carbon in this case was buried deep in the Earth, and so it is not a part of the current \u2018carbon cycle\u2019 as above. Second, an expanding population means more housing, which displaces vegetation that would otherwise soak up CO2. Simple physics suggests that, all else being equal, the average temperature of the Earth will gradually increase due to these rising CO2 levels\u2013hence the term \u2018global warming\u2019.
\nOzone layer thinning
\nBetween 15 and 30 km (9 and 18 miles) above the Earth, a layer of ozone gas (O3) prevents most of the sun\u2019s harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays reaching the ground, and destroying most living things. Man-made chemicals such as refrigerator gases react with ozone and destroy it. Depletion of ozone within the stratosphere has been observed around the South Pole. Though distinct from the Greenhouse Effect, there is a link. Much of the photosynthesis that consumes CO2 takes place not in rainforests, but at the surface of the vast oceans, by countless trillions of microscopic plants (phytoplankton). Increased UV radiation would kill many of these aquatic plants, tipping the balance in favour of more atmospheric CO2.
\nThe generally predicted result is an increase in mean global temperature, with effects on human society ranging from mild to catastrophic. Warmer oceans would mean more water vapour (which traps even more heat) and expanded ocean volumes. This, coupled with partial melting of the ice sheets, would raise average sea levels, submerging whole communities, even entire small island nations. The drastic weather effects could include huge droughts in Australia, flooding and landslides in the western US, and much greater hurricane\/cyclone activity. Paradoxically, the Gulf Stream might slow down or stop, so northern Europe would get much colder.1
\nResponses to all this Greenhouse publicity range from overt panic to outright dismissal as some sort of vast conspiracy.
\nWhat is really known?
\nMore evaporation could increase high-latitude snowfall, increasing ice cover and cooling the Earth. It should also increase cloud cover; this should reflect more solar heat back into space, thus also cooling the Earth. However, depending on the type of cloud, it could do the exact opposite, though current modelling suggests that cooling is far more likely. Atmospheric physicist Dr Larry Vardiman, of the Institute for Creation Research, calls this a created \u2018thermostat\u2019 mechanism designed to cope with minor perturbations, and which will prevent a \u2018runaway Greenhouse\u2019.2 Others disagree strongly.
\nSome welcome this \u2018Greenhouse\u2019 as a partial return to presumed \u2018pre-Flood\u2019 conditions. But the Bible gives very little direct information about the pre-Flood world, and computer modelling has too many limitations to be more than speculative.
\nThe Greenhouse Effect seems a classic example of a \u2018wisdom issue\u2019, i.e. one on which there is no direct Biblical teaching. Christians should feel free to make up their minds on the basis of the best available evidence. As is common in science, the \u2018right\u2019 conclusion might vary as more and more is learned.
\nEnvironment as religion
\nWith the decline of Christianity in the face of the evolutionary onslaught, environmentalism seems like a substitute religion, with an established dogma; \u2018plastic is bad, recycling is virtuous, forests are sacred sites, developers are satanical\u2019.3 And much environmentalism is fanned by evolutionary pantheism. \u2018Mother Earth\u2019 is the creative goddess, who must be protected and pacified. But in any issue, we should be prepared to think carefully, and not let our reaction to extremists goad us into overlooking any Biblical principles that apply.
\nSome Christians reject any environmental concern, saying that since God is in control overall, we should just let Him look after it. But in Scripture, the sovereignty of God never allows us to evade our responsibility. For instance, we don\u2019t expect God to take out our garbage (even though we know He is in control) nor to look after the sewage problems for a village or a city. So why should we not support efforts to keep clean something on a grander scale (the atmosphere, or the oceans)? It may appeal to intuition to \u2018leave the sky in God\u2019s hands\u2019\u2013but the Bible does not suggest that God is more in control of big things than small things; not even a sparrow falls without the Father\u2019s oversight (Matthew 10:29).
\nSpeaking of sparrows, I recall watching a nest with four baby birds. Each of the occupants, in polite sequence, pivoted its tail out of the nest and sent its dropping down to the ground below. God gave these tiny birds programmed instincts to avoid fouling their own nest. We have been given, instead, wisdom to make conscious choices to avoid fouling our individual, community and global \u2018nest\u2019.
\nDominion and stewardship
\nAll Christians seem to agree that man has been given dominion over the Earth, as a steward under God. But what are the limits of responsible stewardship? Man\u2019s dominion extends to the fish of the sea (Genesis 1:26). But where is the fine line between catching a fish to feed one\u2019s family, and huge factory vessels, towing the \u2018walls of death\u2019\u2013kilometres-long drift-nets scouring everything clean, edible or not, and devastating long-standing fishing grounds?
\nThe same concepts apply to forestry and tree-felling. The Christian does not see nature as sacred in itself. While respecting a tree as a creation of God, and thus not to be wantonly destroyed, he will have no problem as such with chopping down a tree to build a house. But in our high-tech age, rainforests are disappearing at a rate equivalent to one football field in area every few seconds.
\nDetermining the boundary between use and abuse, between responsible resource management and rapacious plunder, is obviously a complex \u2018wisdom\u2019 issue, not one with a single Biblical answer that fits all cases. Scientific data, if one can separate out the biases of the researchers, is vital\u2013for instance, reliably knowing the regenerative capacities of logged forests and fresh plantations.
\nMany Bible-believing Christian professionals who have access to much relevant data are becoming increasingly convinced that talk of crisis, particularly in the area of waste accumulation, cannot easily be dismissed as simply scaremongering\u2013see interviews at bottom of page.
\n\u2018Don\u2019t fight the Curse\u2019
\nSome point out that this cursed world is running down, and that the only ultimate answer is God\u2019s creation of a new Heaven and Earth. The physical world is indeed running down. Given enough time, the sun and all other atomic processes would (without God\u2019s intervention) fizzle out, all energy would become evenly distributed, and so all things would be completely dead. However, local aspects of this entropy principle can be reversed here on Earth through intelligent effort. And though this \u2018running down\u2019 of the physical world is a net effect of the Curse, the entropy law is not responsible for social\/moral decay, or environmental irresponsibility\u2013human choices are involved.
\nA small paper calling itself A Christian Response to the Ecological Movement said, \u2018No conservational program will reverse God\u2019s decision to continue to frustrate the ecology of a sinful world \u2026 conservational efforts cannot solve a problem which is only redeemable by God\u2019s hand of recreation.\u2019
\nThis is really saying that since the Curse is God\u2019s doing, we should not oppose it. But applying this consistently would mean we should not try to fight raging disease epidemics, e.g. by vaccination. However, Scripture continually praises the sorts of actions that are local and temporary attempts to overcome the Curse\u2019s effects. The Curse brought man into conflict with man\u2013yet \u2018blessed are the peacemakers\u2019 (Matthew 5:9). The Curse brought disease and suffering\u2013yet alleviating suffering is not only consistent with Scripture, it follows Christ\u2019s healing example.
\nThe Curse also brought an alienation between nature and man; so environmental responsibility which seeks to oppose some of those effects of the Curse is not \u2018opposing God\u2019, even though a new creation will eventually be needed.
\nSaving species
\nThe effort to conserve as many species as possible often presents as the need to preserve diversity, much of it in rapidly disappearing tropical rainforests.
\nWe have often shown how new species (not kinds) can arise through time, by reshuffling and loss\/thinning of information. Because there is no input of new information, no evolution is involved. Inbreeding gene pools with large amounts of diversity are broken down by natural selection and genetic drift into multiple pools of smaller amounts of information. Thus the \u2018dog\u2019 kind leaving the Ark rapidly diversified into dingoes, wolves, coyotes, etc. Along the way, mutations have added increasing genetic load, further degrading information. Such downhill changes have greatly increased diversity, while reducing the capacity for further change and adaptation. The ultimate end of this process is extinction, not evolutionary progress.
\nWhy preserve species? There are man-centred pragmatic reasons. For example, rainforest species may contain many as-yet-undiscovered therapeutic chemicals. This highlights a moral component to environmental issues. God commands us to do good to all men (Galatians 6:10). Depleting genetic richness may deny a future cancer victim a cure. \u2018Thou shalt not steal\u2019 also applies to stealing another person\u2019s access to fresh water or clean air. I currently judge global warming issues in that light\u2013though the science is still fuzzy, if there is a possible danger that excess CO2 emissions may harm future generations, why not err on the side of caution, and support \u2018cleaner\u2019 energy research such as solar or wind power?
\nWorld agricultural authorities are also keen to preserve biological diversity. They know that the \u2018wild types\u2019 of the plants from which our cereals etc. were bred contain vast storehouses of information that have been depleted through breeding selection\u2013a strong creation argument.4
\nThere are deeper considerations, too. The evolutionary conservationist contemplating the extinction of, say, a magnificent wild bird might feel a profound sense of loss, lamenting the \u2018millions of years\u2019 evolution allegedly took to make it. Since random mutations will not again come to exactly the same combination, he can say\u2013\u2018there\u2019re no more of these being made\u2019.5
\nIn fact, the information present on the unique DNA of any species, as the unique blueprint of its kind, originated during Creation Week, directly from the mind of God. Though thinned out by selection\/adaptation, lost or corrupted by mutation, we don\u2019t see it added to. (In fact, we never see information arising spontaneously from raw, unprogrammed matter, except by the operation of mind.) So the permanent loss of some of this divinely implanted information makes me, too, see extinction as tragic. Because Creation was a \u2018one-off\u2019 event, I can also say, \u2018There\u2019re no more of these being made.\u2019
\nBut there is a crucial difference, illustrated by the smallpox virus. Because it needs a human host, it has probably been eradicated by mass inoculation\u2013except for two frozen laboratory batches. Destroy these, and the virus is gone forever. If it is wrong to allow the Mottled Mongolian Mongoose to become extinct, why not save the smallpox virus, also a \u2018part of nature\u2019? Non-Christians (and Christians who fail to acknowledge the Genesis reality that this is not the good world God originally made, but its cursed and groaning remnant) have no consistent basis for favouring one type of creature over another. I suggest that the appropriate Christian attitude is, \u2018Wipe it out!\u2019. The Earth is ultimately for people, and the virus represents some of the worst aspects of the Curse.6
\nIs technology the problem?
\nBig technology makes it easier to pollute or destroy in a big way, overwhelming the checks and balances God has created to allow (fallen) ecosystems to respond to disruption. But it does not follow that technology per se is opposed to sound environmental ethics. In fact, man\u2019s ingenuity and technology may enable us to build super-efficient waste-free factories, or develop non-polluting power sources. Zero growth, which seems logical in some ways, may be a very selfish option for the developed world to foist upon its poorer neighbours. Christian thinking on the environment cannot sidestep issues such as poverty, oppression, corruption, etc. Of course, applying large-scale technology to assist \u2018nature\u2019, such as damming watercourses, may make matters worse. But this is because of the ingenuity and complexity inherent in the created world, not a fault of technology in principle.
\nSimilarly, genetic engineering may aggravate ecological problems, but it might also actually help to overcome them. Constructing new combinations of DNA, and thus even new species (not kinds), is no more un-Biblical than breeding new varieties of corn. The idea of engineered solutions to ecological problems sounds like heresy\u2013yet Eden was a garden, not a wilderness.
\nDown with people
\nThe extreme wing of environmentalism is the animal rights movement. Their leading advocate, Princeton professor Peter Singer, is a fanatical (but wholly consistent) evolutionist. He says, \u2018There is no ethical basis for elevating membership of one particular species into a morally crucial characteristic. From an ethical point of view, we all stand on equal footing\u2013whether we stand on two feet, four feet, or none at all.\u20197
\nIn practice, however, animal-righters usually regard man as lower than the animals. After the Valdez oil spill which killed 30,000 birds (about 0.1% of the area\u2019s population), some called it a worse tragedy than the 1984 chemical leak in Bhopal, India. But this killed more than 3,000 people and injured 200,000 others.8 Many animal liberationists have said it is acceptable to use \u2018defective\u2019 humans in scientific tests as opposed to testing things on healthy animals.9
\nThis is violently opposed to Biblical reality. Man made in the image of God, no matter if unborn, frail or retarded, has intrinsic rights not shared by animals. The Lord Jesus Christ said, \u2018You are of more value than many sparrows\u2019 (Luke 12:7). Of course, the Bible gives no mandate for cruelty to animals; Proverbs 12:10 teaches that a righteous person will regard their needs.
\nGetting the balance right
\nGod owns the Earth, not man, so as responsible stewards we are not free to do as we please with it (Psalm 24:1). But we have also been given dominion (rule) over it, and told to subdue it for our own needs (Genesis 1:26\u201428). Mankind, not the California Cockroach, is, after all, the purpose of Creation. But man was required to dress and keep the garden, not plunder it (Genesis 2:15).
\nBeyond that, our attempts as Christians to make decisions on environmental matters can, in each case, be based on a pragmatism born of concern for others, and on wisdom (James 1:5), refined and informed by the best available scientific data on these continually changing and complex issues.
\nReferences and notes
\nThis current of warm water from the tropics is probably \u2018driven\u2019 by cold water sinking in the freezing Arctic. Return to text.
\nImpact #339, Acts and Facts, September 2001. Return to text.
\nHugh Mackay, The Adelaide Advertiser, 2 May 1990. Return to text.
\nBatten, D., What! \u2026 no potatoes?, Creation 21(1):12\u201414, 1998. Return to text.
\nSome say that a consistent evolutionist should not complain about extinction because it is part of evolution. This is true, but may be a little unfair. The evolutionist believes that it took a very long time for nature to create these things, and that the abnormal selection pressure applied by mankind nowadays is forcing extinction to occur at a far greater rate than new ones could possibly evolve. Return to text.
\nFor a discussion of the problem of how \u2018bad\u2019 things arose post-Fall, see Chapter 6 of The (new and expanded) Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane, 1999. Return to text.
\nSinger, P. (Ed.), In Defence of Animals, Basil Blackwell Limited, Oxford, p. 6, 1985. Return to text.
\nTime, p. 57, 26 March 1990. Return to text.
\nFrey, R. & G., Journal of Medical Ethics 9:94\u201497, 1983. Return to text.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
< --adsense--> answersingenesis.org Christianity and the environment by Carl Wieland \u2018What should we think of the Greenhouse Effect?\u2019 AiG speakers often face questions like this on environmental matters. It is helpful, even vital, to view such things from a Biblical perspective. But in a complex world, it may not be possible to give a rigidly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[413],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n