To see where the disconnect from Christian values will lead people, simply peruse the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) website. Consider the following statements found at the site:¹

Ethical treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans…. We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings…. More than a century ago, Charles Darwin showed that all beings had the same common ancestor. All beings share the desire to live. We all feel pain, joy, grief, and pleasure. We all have worth…. Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way…. We work hard to deceive ourselves and each other in order to maintain the illusion of a real boundary around “human.” …We are all animals. Human beings have few, if any, unique capabilities—many beings can learn languages, enjoy complex social bonds, sacrifice pleasure for the good of others, use tools, imagine, and dream. Many beings remember information, play with friends, enjoy intimacy, gossip, and mourn their deceased. Some beings have enormous capabilities beyond our own—in navigation, endurance, communication, and detection of natural phenomena. We don’t yet fully understand how all beings think—or what they think—but dismissing their mental world as less developed, rational, moral, or intelligent than our own is clearly a mistake…. We share the same evolutionary origins, we inhabit the same Earth, and we are ruled by the same laws of nature. We are all the same.

These remarks contain so very many egregious errors. Consider the following comments on five.

First and foremost, observe that such misguided thinking constitutes an attack on the definition of what it means to be human. It completely obliterates the distinction laid down by the Creator Who “created all things, and by [whose] will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11). The chasm that exists between humans and animals is so deep and wide that for anyone to confuse the two suggests a reliance on emotion and extreme bias rather than logic and reason. After all, unlike animals, humans were created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). Here are 10 attributes that help to clarify what it means to be “human”—attributes that animals cannot and never will possess:²

1. Humans possess capability of speech that is unlike animals.
2. Humans can write, improve their education, accumulate knowledge, and build on past achievements.
3. Humans are creative and possess creative expression.
4. Humans possess an intellectual capacity for thinking and reasoning that transcends animal intelligence.
5. Humans have free-will capacity to make rational choices.
6. Only humans have the ability to choose between right and wrong.
7. Humans possess a conscience.
8. Humans can experience heart-felt emotions and emotional experience.
9. Humans alone possess a unique, inherent religious inclination, with a desire and ability to worship.
10. Only humans bear the spiritual imprint of God due to the fact that they possess an immortal soul.

A great deal may be said about each of these attributes in contrast to the illusion that is sometimes created by animal sentience. Nevertheless, it can be shown that humans stand apart from animals in their inherent, inbuilt possession of these spiritual qualities.

Second, observe that the animal rights agenda is rooted in a Darwinian evolutionary worldview. If all creatures and plants are merely evolved species, then one is not “superior” to another—just different. Hence, a rose and a scorpion are as valuable and worthy of care as a human baby or a bull. This inane thinking is the direct result of buying into the thoroughly debunked theory of evolution and dismissing the abundant evidence in the created order of a supernatural Creator Who has revealed Himself to humans via nature and His written Word in the Bible.³ Once a person rejects the Christian worldview, animism becomes believable and there is no end to the outlandish, illogical conclusions that will be championed.⁴ But the evidence is available that decisively proves the reality of the God of the Bible, and the authenticity of His communication to mankind via the Bible.⁵ Such being the case, no animal on Earth—be it reptile, mammal (except humans), fish, insect, bird, amphibian, or crustacean—is as valuable as human beings. Speaking to half-way sensible individuals who could follow the logic, Jesus asked: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (Matthew 12:12). Those who have been duped by the animal rights philosophy would have been completely unconvinced by Jesus’ rationale. But those who live in an agriculturally-based society easily comprehend the sense of Jesus’ logic. Animal rights advocates have been treated to such overwhelming prosperity, convenience, and easy access to food and clothes that they have hypocritically dismissed their opponents while simultaneously partaking of the results of their opponents’ provisions.

Third, animals were given by God for food and other uses. If the Bible is of supernatural origin (and it may be proven to be such), then the Bible’s depiction of the purpose of animals is true. The Bible plainly indicates the interrelationship between humans and animals when it states concerning humans: “[L]et them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26). God instructed humans to “fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The Hebrew term for “dominion” (rah-dah) means to rule over.⁶ The word for “subdue” (kah-vash) means to bring into submission by force.⁷ The psalmist echoed these very directives when he praised God by saying, “You [God] have made him [man] to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen—even the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas” (Psalm 8:6-8). God stressed human domination in even stronger terms after the Flood: “[T]he fear of you [humans] and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Genesis 9:2-3). The only restriction that God placed on the consumption of animal meat was that the blood was to be drained from the animal before it was eaten (Genesis 9:4; cf. Leviticus 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:16,23-24; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; Acts 15:20). Animals can also be used for clothing (Genesis 3:21). If the Bible is, in fact, the inspired Word of God, then animals are not humans.

Fourth, in those characteristics where animals are superior to humans, the reason is not due to evolution, nor does such superiority imply a sharing of what it means to be human. Rather, the Creator invested all His creatures with separate capabilities and skills to equip them to function as they were designed to function. Eagles have sharper eyesight than humans due to the fact that they were designed to be able to see their necessary prey from lofty heights. But they are not human and will not evolve into humans.

Fifth, it is telling that the PETA quotation admits that both humans and animals “are ruled by the same laws of nature.” Where do such laws come from? Did they evolve from rocks and dirt? The admission that firm laws of nature exist is a concession that a lawmaker must exist. The evolutionary viewpoint cannot consistently or adequately explain this fact. Fixed laws in the Universe and on Earth shout the reality of the God of the Bible (cf. Psalm 19:1ff.; Acts 14:17). That Creator made animals and humans, but He created them very differently. Only humans are made in His image and will stand before Him in judgment and give account for their behavior. Animals will not.

A further irony is the disingenuous call for the application of the “Golden Rule” to animals. The “Golden Rule” is a direct reference to a directive made by Jesus Christ. One can be certain that Jesus did not have animals in mind when He declared: “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). The fact is that, at its center, PETA pits itself against Christianity and the God of the Bible.

Conclusion

Before the animal rights folks lecture humans about their alleged inhumane treatment of animals, they would do well to spend their time addressing animal “mistreatment” of other animals. That, too, would be a vain, superfluous, and absurd pursuit, since the food chain was created by God. However, at least they would stop wasting the time, money, and efforts of those who provide humanity with food, medicine, clothing, and other benefits that relieve suffering and sickness, and make human life more livable.

Endnotes

The post Humans are Not Animals appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One on-line petition which seeks “Justice for Harambe,” calling for an investigation of the parents, has already received more than 500,000 signatures.⁴ Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer and animal rights activist Karen Dawn insist: “As animal advocates, we don’t automatically deem the life of a boy as exponentially more important than that of a fellow primate.”⁵ PETA was quick to scold the zoo even for having gorillas and other animals in captivity,⁶ where they are “exploited” and “gunned down.”⁷ PETA Primatologist, Julia Gallucci, chided: “This tragedy is exactly why PETA urges families to stay away from any facility that displays animals as sideshows for humans to gawk at.”⁸

For those whose minds have been shaped by the perspective of divine truth—as most American minds, for most of American history, once were—the confusion regarding the value of human beings in contrast with the animal kingdom are shocking, disturbing, and depressing. How can a civilization slump so far into outright animism, paganism, and atheism? Such should not be surprising since, once the Christian worldview is jettisoned from any society, the ideologies that will quickly fill the vacuum will inevitably be humanistic, heathen, irreligious, depraved, and idolatrous. Indeed, the half-century long descent into the abyss of moral and spiritual confusion that has characterized America is strongly reminiscent of the societal circumstances that prevailed in the Roman Empire during the first century:

[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

The passage proceeds to delineate the moral filth that ensues for such a people—a portrait of America’s own moral decline, including the acceptance and practice of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality, covetousness, and haters of God, to name a few (vss. 26-32).

The substantial infiltration of academia by evolution and atheism has resulted in precisely the social conditions that now prevail in America with regard to the nonsensical and inflated sense of importance assigned to animals and the physical environment. Any individual, who would have even a split second of hesitation to kill a gorilla (or any other animal) to save a human child, has unwittingly become a victim to the massive inundation of humanist propaganda that fails to assign the proper value to animals.

For those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He literally left the heavenly realm and came to Earth to atone for sin, and that He now reigns in heaven itself, and will one day bring the entire physical Universe to a fiery conclusion (2 Peter 3:1-11), the value of Harambe the gorilla is a settled matter. Jesus spoke directly and definitively—several times—to the issue.

In Matthew 6, Jesus reassured His disciples that God’s care for them meant that they need not worry unnecessarily about acquiring food and clothes. His reasoning included this admonition: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (vs. 26, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:25—“Of how much more value are you than the birds?”).

On another occasion, Jesus challenged the disciples not to fear the hatred, intimidation, and opposition of those who would seek to deter their efforts to teach and preach His message. Why? He explained: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:7). Observe that animals have some value in this world. God created them for specific purposes. However, there is literally no comparison when it comes to evaluating their status and their worth in relation to humans. Animals are expendable. But Jesus adamantly insisted that humans are much more valuable than even many animals.

On yet another occasion, Jesus answered those who sought to condemn Him for healing—on the Sabbath—a man whose hand was shriveled and deformed. The Lord’s logical prowess was piercing and penetrating: “He said to them, ‘What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?’” This question was a reflection of Deuteronomy 22:1-4. It was part of the Law of Moses designed to promote care and concern for one’s fellow man. In an agrarian society, the preservation of farm animals was a serious matter. A family’s survival was dependent on its animals for food and clothes. So Jesus reasoned, if it is proper to intervene to save the life of a farm animal so that human beings might be provided for, “of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (Matthew 12:11-12). Do sheep have some value? Certainly—they are vital to providing the basic necessities of humans. But they are mere animals—they do not have souls like humans, nor were they made in God’s image like humans (Genesis 1:26).⁹ Jesus’ point was poignant. He was, in essence, stressing an important contrast between animals and humans. He was essentially saying, “If you see the value of preserving the life of a dumb, soulless animal for the good of humans, why in the world would you question My action which will improve the life and well-being of a human?” Indeed, Jesus demonstrated that even His religious enemies were clear thinking enough to know that animals are not even to be compared to the value of human beings.

Whatever might be said about parental responsibility to discipline their children and train them to be obedient when parents warn children of the potential dangers that exist at zoos, and whatever might be said about the value of animals—from zebras and gorillas to tarantulas and boa constrictors—nevertheless, according to Deity, human beings are of much more value. As a nation, our depraved moral sensibilities are on display when our citizens show more concern for a 17-year-old gorilla than for the 56 million innocent human babies that have been slaughtered by abortion since 1973.¹⁰

REFERENCES

The post Are You Not Much More Valuable than an Animal? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Consider the connection between the vast time that sauropod dinosaurs allegedly were on Earth with a recent study published in Current Biology concerning “climate warmth” (i.e., global warming). According to Dr. David Wilkinson of John Moores University in Liverpool, and his colleagues, sauropods produced massive amounts of the “greenhouse” gas methane, which would have warmed the planet considerably. [NOTE: Scientists have suggested that greenhouse gas is “21 times more powerful than CO₂ at trapping heat on Earth and causing climate change” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” 2012).] Wilkinson and colleagues conservatively estimate that the “global methane production from sauropods” was “520 million tonnes per year” (2012, 22[9]:292-93, emp. added). Just how much is 520 million tons, comparatively speaking? According to Wilkinson, “Our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” emp. added).

Even though sauropods supposedly would have warmed the planet considerably with their massive amounts of emitted methane (“more…than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together”), the theory of evolution says they flourished on Earth for more than 100 million years. Yet, for the last several years evolutionary environmentalists have led man to believe that the world as we know it is in eminent danger because of a few years of (alleged) man-made global warming. Why should we believe that dinosaurs, who alone produced as much or more methane as is produced today (“both natural and anthropogenic”—Wilkinson, et al., p. 293), could survive for more than 100 million years in such warmth, but humans and all other forms of life on Earth today are supposedly making life unbearable in only a few measly years?

The contradictions, inconsistencies, and absurd allegations and suggestions (e.g., Al Gore’s “carbon credit” market; see Jean, 2008) of the godless mindset of evolutionary environmentalists is exasperating. The fact is, our planet has gone through stages of warming and cooling throughout its history (see Lyons, 2008; cf. Miller, 2008). Based upon fossil evidence, we know that dinosaurs and many other animals once lived in Antarctica when that continent had a much warmer climate. Humans and dinosaurs once flourished on Earth together (see Lyons and Butt, 2008), even though sauropods apparently emitted massive amounts of global-warming gases.

As unpleasant as it may be to acknowledge, since the creation of the world (Romans 1:20; Mark 10:6), man has survived on Earth despite all of the Brontosaurus belches, Megalosaurus methane, and Diplodocus dung. Mankind has survived cooling periods (“ice-age(s)”) and warming periods. In truth, man will continue the cycle of life on Earth, until Jesus, Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3), returns and brings an end to the Earth (2 Peter 3:10-13).

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’ Themselves into Extinction, British Scientists Say” (2012), May 7, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/?intcmp=features.

Jean, Pamela (2008), “Al Gore Purchases Carbon Credits from a Company He Himself Owns,” Digital Journal, March 4, http://digitaljournal.com/article/251232.

Lyons, Eric (2008), “Global Warming, Earth’s History, and Jesus’ Return,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=2521#.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2008), Evolution, Environmentalism, and the Deification of Nature (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Wilkinson, David M., Nisbet G. Euan, and Graeme D. Ruxton (2012), “Could Methane Produced by Sauropod Dinosaurs have Helped Drive Mesozoic Climate Warmth?” Current Biology, 22[9]:292-93, May 8, http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true.

The post Global Warming…and Gaseous Dinosaurs appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Inherent in all of these accounts is the fact that fleas are viewed as undesirable creatures to be eradicated. Their presence on other animals allegedly constitutes abuse by humans. So how should we deal with the nasty flea problem that causes the animal police to punish animal owners? The ASPCA offers the following advice for handling fleas on dogs and cats: “Speak with your veterinarian about choosing the right flea treatment product. Common options include a topical, liquid treatment applied to the back of the neck, shampoos, sprays and powders. Some products kill both adult fleas and their eggs, but they can vary in efficacy” (“Fleas,” n.d., emp. added; cf. “Controlling Fleas…,” 2012). “Also, it is important to treat your yard as thoroughly as your house. Concentrate on shady areas, where fleas live, and use an insecticide or nematodes, microscopic worms that kill flea larvae” (“Fleas,” emp. added). And how does PETA propose to deal with the flea problem?

Although PETA encourages nonlethal methods of insect control whenever possible, we realize that lethal methods sometimes must be used to combat insects…. For a flea infestation, sprinkle carpets with diatomaceous earth…, leave it down overnight, then vacuum it up. This will kill most fleas (“What is the…?,” n.d., emp. added). Vacuum your house as frequently as possible, and stow the vacuum bag inside a plastic bag in your freezer to kill any fleas or flea eggs that you happened to vacuum up…. Diatomaceous earth…will kill fleas by causing them to dehydrate…. Keep your grass cut short, and try dousing it with beneficial nematodes―these are roundworms who are more than happy to dine on flea larvae (“The ABCs of…,” n.d., emp. added).

Observe the self-contradiction and utter hypocrisy of the left: Dog owners should be prosecuted for allowing their pets to become flea infested. But how does one prevent dogs from becoming flea infested? Kill the fleas, of course. But wait! What about the fleas? Who is sticking up for their rights? Don’t they have the same right to life as dogs? And where is the consistency in treating a flea problem by attacking the environment with insecticide, let alone promoting interspecies conflict by assisting one specie (nematodes) to devour another specie (fleas)? Causing slow death to fleas by dehydration is surely as cruel as starving a dog.

Such is the absurdity and insanity of any viewpoint that conflicts with the Creator’s communication regarding the environment and its constituent variables. “Celebrating” animals is conspicuously tantamount to “worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25)—a social circumstance that signals a depraved period in history in which people became “futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21-22). Such a period is inevitably accompanied by “vile passions” and a militant refusal to “retain God in their knowledge” (vss. 26,28). Does this social scenario not describe America today?

What should one expect when 50 years ago American school children began being taught in earnest that they owe their ultimate origin to naturalistic, mechanistic forces of “nature”—rocks and dirt if you will? What should one expect since God and the Bible have been systematically banned from public education? We should fully expect to see precisely what we’re seeing in American civilization—hedonism, the increase of atheism, embracing and welcoming animism and pagan religion (i.e., Hinduism and Buddhism), and a host of other maladies that will spell the demise of the Republic.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars and man hours have been spent in the last few decades to protect animals and punish those deemed cruel to animals. Yet paralleling this period in America, unborn humans have been slaughtered by the millions. Moral sensibilities can be defined and governed only by God, since “the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). As God and the principles of Christianity are jettisoned from American culture, so consistent, logical living of life must dissolve as well. The solution is to saturate the American mind once again with the truths of the Bible. There is no other solution. As the 8^th century B.C. prophet plainly declared: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

[DISCLAIMER NOTE: The author is not suggesting that no concern whatsoever should be given to the cruel treatment of animals. The Bible reflects a measure of concern in this regard (e.g., Proverbs 12:10; Deuteronomy 22:6-7). The problem is that those who neglect or abandon the Christian worldview inevitably develop an inflated preoccupation with animals as pets and assign a value and significance to animals that is unwarranted and ultimately counterproductive to civilized society.]

REFERENCES

“The ABCs of Cruelty-Free Flea Control” (no date), PETA, http://www.peta.org/living/companion-animals/The-ABCs-of-Cruelty-Free-Flea-Control.aspx.

“About Us: Overview” (2011), The Humane Society, September 19, http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/.

Berke, Ned (2012), “23 Dogs Recovered From Sheepshead Bay Couple,” Sheepshead Bites, February 16, http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/02/breaking-bay-couple-arrested-for-cruelty-to-animals-20-dogs-recovered-from-two-homes/.

Braden, Tyra (1992), “Woman Fined For Housing Flea-infested Pets Lehighton Resident Convicted Of Cruelty To Animals, Other Charges,” The Morning Call, November 11, http://articles.mcall.com/1992-11-11/news/2887493_1_cruelty-trash-disposal-animals.

“Case Updates” (2009), Pet-Abuse.com, March 8, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/#ixzz1tFexUsg2http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/.

“Controlling Fleas and Ticks on Your Pets” (2012), The Humane Society, January 23, http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/tips/controlling_flea_ticks_pets.html.

“Dogs Neglected, Flea Infestation Stonington, CT (2009), September 4, Pet-Abuse.com, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15777/CT/US/.

Eims, Penny (2012), “Florida Man Arrested on Two Counts of Animal Cruelty for Neglecting Dogs,” Examiner, April 13, http://www.examiner.com/article/florida-man-arrested-on-two-counts-of-animal-cruelty-for-neglecting-dogs.

“Flea-infested, Emaciated Dog Thrown from Truck Manteca, CA” (2011), Pet-Abuse.com, July 25, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18389/CA/US/.

“Fleas” (no date), ASPCA, http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/dog-care-fleas.aspx.

Michigan Animal Abuse Cases (2011), http://files.meetup.com/1258100/MichiganAnimalAbuseCases_v1.pdf.

“Six Dogs Seized From Flea Infested Property Iron Mountain Lake, MO” (2008), Pet-Abuse.com, September 25,
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/#ixzz1tFexUsg2http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/.

“What is the best way to get rid of fleas and ticks?” (no date), PETA, http://www.peta.org/about/faq/What-is-the-best-way-to-get-rid-of-fleas-and-ticks.aspx.

The post Who Cares for the Fleas? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

It is not hard to see that our culture has changed a lot over the past few decades. This has caused many people to question the actions of previous generations. One example is the treatment of animals. In today’s society, there are many animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who claim that it is morally wrong to hunt and kill animals. Is there any truth to this? No, there simply is not. In the Bible, we read about several examples of animals being hunted and killed for the benefit of mankind. David killed both a lion and a bear to protect his father’s property (1 Samuel 17:35). Esau hunted game to bring some to his father to eat (Genesis 27:5). Jesus commanded Peter to catch a fish with a hook and get money out of its mouth to pay the temple tax (Matthew 17:27). God himself supplied animal skin to Adam and Eve to wear (Genesis 3:21). Hunting and fishing have provided many benefits to mankind throughout the years. They have also provided many benefits to animals, since hunting and fishing are important wildlife management tools. Scriptures do not say that hunting and fishing are immoral. In fact, the Bible encourages hunting and fishing. The false idea that hunting is immoral has risen from animal rights groups who base their opinions on emotion (and often evolution) and not the Bible.

The post Is it wrong for people to hunt animals for sport? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:26-28).

God created man in His image. He gave man an immortal soul (Genesis 35:18; Matthew 10:28). He made man inherently more valuable than all other life on Earth (Matthew 6:26-30). From the very beginning, God expected man to eat plant life (Genesis 1:29), and, since at least the time of Noah, God has authorized man to eat animals (Genesis 9:2-3). In truth, man has been killing animals (for sacrifices, clothes, etc.) with God’s approval ever since sin entered the world (Genesis 4:4; Hebrews 11:4; Genesis 8:20; cf. Genesis 3:21). The shedding of man’s blood, however, is altogether different. Why? Because “in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).

Whereas the Christian worldview is grounded in the God-given value of human life and man’s superiority over the rest of God’s earthly Creation (see Psalm 8:5-8), atheistic evolution devalues human life to the point where man inheres no more value than rodents, roaches, and microbes. For decades, students in American public schools have read from textbooks that devalue human life. In the introduction to the unit on the animal kingdom in Holt’s 10^th-grade biology textbook, students were taught: “You are an animal, and share a common heritage with earthworms…” (Johnson, 1994, p. 453). A 1989 Earth Science textbook published by Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich alleged that “humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago” (p. 356). In 2006, evolutionary ecologist Dr. Eric Pianka was named the Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year. At his award ceremony, Pianka condemned “the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe” and “hammered his point home by exclaiming, ‘We’re no better than bacteria!’” (Mims, 2006). In a 2008 New Scientist article titled, “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” environmentalist David Suzuki stated in an interview with Jo Merchant: “[W]e must acknowledge that we are animals…. We like to think of ourselves as elevated above other creatures. But the human body evolved” (Marchant, 200[2678]:44).

Indeed, there is a stark contrast between theism and atheistic evolution. One says that God specially created man; the other says, we “share a common heritage with earthworms.” One says that man is inherently more valuable than animals; the other says “we are animals.” One says that man is superior to bacteria; the other says, “we’re no better than bacteria!” But, if we’re no better than microorganisms or the Earth on which we live, what will keep humanity from deciding to reduce the human population to 10% of the present number in order to “save mother Earth” from “overpopulation”? Dr. Pianka suggested such an idea during his 2006 award ceremony. What will keep lawmakers from banning the killing and eating of animals (our alleged equals)? And what about eating plants? They are alive, too. How can we justify eating plants and animals if we are no better than bacteria? How can we justify walking? After all, we might step on, and kill, a worm or a bacterium. If we lie down, we might destroy a bedbug. Even more troublesome, if we continue to breathe, we might inhale and destroy a microbe.

In truth, when people embrace the godless notion that human life and all other forms of life are equal, insanity prevails. Chaos rules the day. A biblical worldview, however, creates a rational order suitable for human existence.

REFERENCES

Earth Science (1989), (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich).

Johnson, George B. (1994), Biology: Visualizing Life (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.

Mims, Forrest (2006), “Dealing with Doctor Doom,” The Citizen Scientist, http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/ index.html.

The post God, Evolution, and the Value of Human Life appeared first on Apologetics Press.

It is true that humans can hurt the environment, and that we should do what we can, within reason, to take care of the wonderful resources that God put on the Earth for our use. But it is also true that many of the people today who are upset the most about pollution do not believe in God. They do not see the world as having been created by God for humans (Genesis 1:28-30; 9:2-3; 1 Timothy 4:4). They think humans could de-stroy the Earth by pollution. But this is not true. God designed the Earth for humans to survive and live as they prepare for their eternal home, until God,Himself, decides to destroy the Earth and the entire Uni-verse (read 2 Peter 3:7,10-13).Until then, humans may harm the environmenthere and there, but they do not have the power to do lasting damage. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tornados, hurricanes, and many other forces do far more damage to our planet than humans ever can.

God’s creation is durable, flexible, and tough. The world—which has been around for only a few thousand years now—will last until it has served its purpose. We should use care in our treatment of the environment. But rocks, trees, and animals do not have souls like people do. They will not live beyond this world.

The post Pollution appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As unnerving and unfortunate as the Gulf oil spill may be, yet, once again, more evidence has “surfaced” that divine design regulates the planet. Microbiologists and microbial ecologists report that oil-gobbling bacteria are “flocking to the…crude in droves” (“Bacteria Are…,” 2010, 329:1005). Scientists say the oil has degraded at a rate “much faster than anticipated” due to a “newly-found and unclassified species of microbes” (Kuo, 2010). Scientists are astounded that, not only do the bacteria break down and disperse the oil particles, they do so without significantly depleting the oxygen level in surrounding seawater. Researchers conclude that the bacteria play “a significant role in controlling the ultimate fates and consequences of deep-sea oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico” (Hazen, et al., 2010).

If the God of the Bible exists, wouldn’t we expect Him to make the creation resilient, hearty, and generally able to take care of itself? Wouldn’t we expect Him to embed within the environment those features that would be necessary to perpetuate human life until He brings all earthly existence to an end? Yes, we would. And that is precisely what the evidence consistently demonstrates. Yes, humans can inflict damage—but no ultimate harm that would endanger the divinely intended purpose of the environment. Atheistic evolutionists, and their environmentalist protégés, cannot be trusted to provide realistic reactions to oil spills and other manmade mistakes. The sobering perspective that ought to characterize every human being is reflected in the questions posed by God to Job and Jeremiah:

[W]ho shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it, and set bars and doors;
When I said, “This far you may come, but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”? (Job 38:8-11).
“Do you not fear Me?” says the LORD. “Will you not tremble at My presence,
Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it?
And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail;
Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it (Jeremiah 5:22).

REFERENCES

“Bacteria Are Gobbling Gulf Oil” (2010), Science, 329:1005.

Gore, Al (2006), An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming (New York: Rodale).

Hazen, Terry, C., et al. (2010), “Deep-Sea Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-Degrading Bacteria,” Science, August 24, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;science.1195979v2?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Terry+Hazen&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT.

Kuo, Vivian (2010), “Newly Discovered Microbe Helped Disperse Oil, Study Finds,” CNN, August 25, http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/gulf.oil.study/index.html?iref=allsearch.

Morino, Mark (2010), “Brad Pitt Unleashes Anger at BP in Spike Lee Doc,” CNN Entertainment: The Marquee Blog, August 23, http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/brad-pitt-unleashes-anger-at-bp-in-spike-lee-doc/?iref=allsearch.

“Oil Disaster By the Numbers” (2010), CNN, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/index.html.

The post The Gulf Oil Spill and the Creator appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Since James Lee’s death, much has come to light about his radical environmental beliefs. Many in the mainstream media ignored or downplayed Lee’s previously posted environmental rants. (Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanet.com prior to his hostile actions on September 1; see Lee, 2010). Some may justify disregarding Lee’s extreme human-hating, planet-saving views because he was delusional, or mentally ill, or simply because the global-warming, environmental movement should not be discredited on the basis of one man’s extreme actions. (The mainstream media, however, do not ignore the strongly held beliefs of a “Bible-believing,” delusional pro-lifer who bombs an abortion clinic.) Of course, it is true that the actions of a person should not discredit a particular belief system or religion, if the individual is acting in opposition to his or her beliefs. The fact is, however, Lee was actually taking environmental, evolutionary, atheistic beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Like a growing number of environmental, global-warming alarmists, James Lee made perfectly clear that the human population needs to be reduced drastically. In his pre-crusade post, Lee wrote about the “problem of human overpopulation,” saying, “the planet does not need humans” (Lee, 2010). “Saving the plant means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!… Nothing is more important than…saving the environment and the remaning [sic] species.” As if the Discovery Channel does not already heavily advocate the General Theory of Evolution, Lee emphasized how they must “[t]alk about Evolution…and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains…” (Lee, 2010).

For someone who rejects God and the Bible, but believes that humans (1) evolved by time and chance over millions of years, and (2) are currently wreaking havoc on the only known planet in the Universe that can support life, destroying human lives to save “Mother Earth” is perfectly rational. James Lee may have been mentally ill, but his flippant attitude about humanity and his willingness to end the lives of humans for the sake of Earth is perfectly consistent with atheistic, evolutionary beliefs.

At his “2006 Scientist of the Year” award ceremony in Beaumont, Texas, evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka expressed his Lee-like concerns about human overpopulation.  According to attendee Forrest Mims,

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number…. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years.

Did Pianka release Ebola upon his audience? No. Did he take hostages as James Lee did in Silver Spring, Maryland? No. But, if he had, he merely would have been acting out what he and millions of atheistic evolutionists around the world believe: “We’re no better than bacteria!” (as quoted in Mims, 2006).

The truth is, humans are better than bacteria! We are better and more valuable than any plant or animal on Earth because God made us better. He created man “in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). He gave man an immortal soul (Zechariah 12:1; Matthew 10:28). And he gave man the responsibility, not to destroy human life to save the planet (Genesis 9:6), but to “fill the earth and subdue it” and “have dominion…over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

For those who refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), life will forever be filled with the self-contradictory, unreasonable, inhumane lies of atheistic evolution. But, for those who “come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and embrace man’s God-given role on Earth, beliefs and actions will remain consistent, rational, and in harmony with God’s Word.

REFERENCES

Lee, James (2010), “The Discovery Channel Must Broadcast to the World Their Commitment to Save the Planet and to do the Following Immediately,” http://www.scribd.com/doc/36771069/Save-the-Planet-Protest-Com.

Mims, Forrest (2006), “Dealing with Doctor Doom,” The Citizen Scientist, http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html.

The post Save the Planet! Kill the People! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Not only does human-caused global warming exist, but it is also growing more and more dangerous, and at a pace that has now made it a planetary emergency…. [H]umans are the cause of most of the global warming that is taking place…. [W]e are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced (pp. 8,9,10, emp. added).

Of course, the boisterous allegations of the climatologists have been fraught with self-contradiction. Today we are being told that due to human interference, global warming and the “greenhouse effect” are occurring, and that the Earth’s temperature is increasing (cf. Sagan, 1997, pp. 105ff.). Yet we have also been terrorized with the notion that our actions are “lowering the surface temperature of our planet” (Sagan, 1980, p. 103). Ironically, a 1974 article in TIME magazine reported a three decade long cooling of atmospheric temperatures and other “weather aberrations” that “may be the harbinger of another ice age” (“Another Ice Age?”). Insisting that “telltale signs are everywhere,” as expected, one of the culprits responsible for the threat was identified as man, since “dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth” (“Another Ice Age?”). The 1974 article concluded:

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climate balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years (“Another Ice Age?,” emp. added).

So which is it? Ice age or global warming? Since yesterday’s science is today’s superstition, how wary ought we to be regarding the bold claims of today’s “science”?

The truth is that God created the Earth to be self-sustaining until it has served its purpose. It is self-healing, resilient, and restorative. It actually rejuvenates itself. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon set into place by God. God designed gases in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide and water vapor, to remain in balance and warm the Earth, creating a stable climate for the support of plant, animal, and human life. Without these gases, Earth would be 40 to 60 degrees colder—essentially a frigid desert (cf. Climate Change…, 1990, p. xxxvii).

The Earth is not “fragile” when it comes to human interference. Humans cannot destroy the Earth (let alone the Universe). Humans cannot eliminate the ozone layer. Humans cannot cause permanent, life-threatening global warming. Human ability to pollute, contaminate, and destroy the environment cannot begin to compare with the destructive forces of nature itself: volcanoes, tornados, hurricanes, drought, typhoons, earthquakes, and floods. The 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines introduced 20 to 30 megatons of sulfur dioxide and aerosols into the Earth’s atmosphere, with those materials completely encircling the Earth in some three months (Sagan, 1997, p. 107). Satellite data collected indicated that, as a result, “the ozone levels had depleted by about 15 percent” (Rickman, 1997). In fact, as a direct result of the large amounts of stratospheric sulfate particles from the Mount Pinatubo eruption, “record low global ozone levels were recorded in 1992 and 1993” (“Environmental Indicators…,” n.d., emp. added). NASA concluded: “Stratospheric aerosols such as those produced by major volcanic eruptions are thought to be important catalysts in the chemical processes leading to the observed ozone losses” (“NASA’s Ozone Studies,” n.d.; cf. “Incomplete Recovery…,” 2006). Humans cannot begin to compete with nature’s impact on itself. We humans have an inflated sense of our own importance if we think that we determine whether the world goes on after we are gone.

Sadly, while so much of the world’s attention is directed to physical concerns, America’s most important role of pointing the world to spiritual concerns, specifically, the truth of the Christian religion, has fallen by the wayside. Instead of being preoccupied with the future of the Earth—the God-designed, temporary abode of human habitation (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14)—our foremost concern ought to be with where we will spend the afterlife: heaven or hell. As God warned the Romans: “For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: ‘As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10-12). To the Corinthians, He explained: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:10-11).

The world will last for just as long as God intends—regardless of how much environmental damage humans inflict on the planet. The Earth’s environment will remain intact until it fulfills the purpose for which He created it. When that day arrives, then, yes, global warming will most definitely occur—but it will be divinely instigated and exceed anything humans can even imagine. Here is God’s own description of that day:

But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men…. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? (2 Peter 3:7-12).

“Another Ice Age” (1974), TIME Magazine, June 24, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html.

Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm.

“Environmental Indicators: Ozone Depletion” (no date), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/index.html.

Gore, Al (2006), An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming (New York: Rodale).

“Incomplete Recovery Forecast for Earth’s Ozone Layer” (2006), CBC News, May 3, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/03/ozone-layer060503.html.

“NASA’s Ozone Studies” (no date), NASA Facts On-Line, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/ozonestu.htm.

Rickman, James (1997), “Los Alamos Computer Model Accurately Predicts Global Climate Effects of Pinatubo Eruption,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/012297text.html.

Sagan, Carl (1997), Billions and Billions (New York: Random House).

Sagan, Carl (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House).

The post Christians Believe In Global Warming appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Whether the Earth’s average temperature is warming, cooling, or remaining fairly steady is somewhat unclear. Have many glaciers receded during the past century? Yes. Has the worldwide average temperature risen slightly over the past 100 years? Many scientists believe so. Have temperatures risen over the past 15 years? Some say “yes,” while others say “no.”

Considering that much of America has just experienced one of the coldest (and in some places, the snowiest) winters in recent memory, a growing number of people have a difficult time believing “the Earth is warming.” Also, since more scientists are using the expression “climate change,” rather than “global warming,” we are left with the impression that many scientists still are uncertain about the matter.

What We Do Know

Although it is frustrating how many unknowns surround “climate change,” there are some things that we can know for sure. For example, we can know that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods in the past. There is no debating this issue. It is an established fact accepted by both creationists and evolutionists. Long before planes, trains, and automobiles (which allegedly have caused much of today’s “global warming”) the Earth’s climate changed drastically. Consider the coldest place on Earth today—Antarctica. At present, Antarctica is covered by roughly seven million cubic miles of ice (which represents 90% of all the ice on Earth). In addition, the average temperature at the South Pole is nearly minus 58 degrees.

So what does this have to do with “global warming?” Simply this: Antarctica has not always been the frigid, icy area it is today. Scientists know that the South Pole was once warm and green. Can you believe it? It’s true. Long ago, Antarctica’s climate was almost sub-tropical—more like that of the central part of the United States. The fossil record indicates that in the past Antarctica was lush with ferns, flowering plants, and conifer trees, and was even the home of several different kinds of dinosaurs.

What’s more, Antarctica was not alone: some of the coldest places on Earth today, including Greenland, Alaska, and the Arctic, were once far warmer. The fossil record shows that freshwater ferns once thrived in the Arctic Ocean, while breadfruit trees, which today flourish in warm places like Hawaii, once grew in Greenland. Even climate sensitive turtles once lived in the Arctic.

The fact is, our planet has gone through various stages of warming and cooling throughout its history. At one time, ice covered more of the Earth than at present. (Scientists refer to these periods as “ice ages.”) At other times, even the Earth’s Arctic and Antarctic regions were virtually ice-free.

No one knows for certain what all caused the Earth to be warmer or cooler in the past. What we do know is that our forefathers have been on the Earth “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50-51; Genesis 1-2). They survived times when the Earth (as a whole) was cooler, as well as when the Earth was warmer. In cooler periods, our ancestors, no doubt, built more fires, wore more clothes, and stayed in their shelters longer periods of time. In warmer periods (when ice melted), our ancestors surely enjoyed the outdoors more and were smart enough to move to higher ground when sea levels rose.

When Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, they had to learn to adapt to their new environment. When Noah stepped out of the ark onto dry ground for the first time in a year, he had to get used to a new world that had been completely flooded. During the seven years of famine in the days of Joseph, mankind had to adjust.

If Jesus delays His return for hundreds or thousands of years (which He may not), the Earth’s climate will likely change. Regardless of how much coal man burns, or how many gas-guzzling cars he drives, history has shown us that the Earth’s climate varies over time. When those climate changes occur, man must learn to adapt.

The post Global Warming appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How do they say we can save the planet? Well, they say we need to get rid of some of the cows, since cows and their manure leak methane gas. That’s right, they claim that gaseous expulsions by cows damage the planet more than fumes from cars. To offset cow belching, some environmentalists are trying to develop new kinds of plants that cows can digest easier. Others say we need to get rid of some moose since they emit carbon dioxide. Australian scientists say that kangaroos produce almost no greenhouse gas methane due to their unique digestive bacteria. So the scientists want to transplant the kangaroo bacteria into cows and sheep to prevent them from adding to global warming. How crazy is that! And that’s not all. Some believe that even having children is bad—since humans pollute the planet and emit carbon dioxide.

But wait! We know that God created Earth, along with plants, animals, and humans (Genesis 1-2). We know that He put humans on Earth so they can decide to serve Him and live their lives in such a way that they can be with Him forever in heaven. So we know that the Earth will last just as long as God intended. After all, it is Jesus Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). It is in Jesus that “all things hold together” in the entire Universe (Colossians 1:17). Peter said that “the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word” (2 Peter 3:7). Paul announced to the Greek philosophers: “[F]or in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). So we can be assured that the environment will keep working and stay suitable for life for as long as God intends. He is the great Sustainer.

We also know that the carbon dioxide that comes out of animals and humans is necessary for green plants to produce oxygen. Humans do not need to “regulate” the release of carbon dioxide! God has already done that—and continues to do so! The exchange between plants, animals, and humans is due to divine design. That’s why Christians don’t have to worry about whether the environment is going to survive. God is taking care of that! It’s far more important to remember that humans possess inherent value and worth that surpasses the value of either animals or the environment (Matthew 10:31; Luke 12:24).

On the other hand, if God does not exist (as many environmentalists and evolutionists believe), then the physical environment must be protected and preserved by humans in order for life to continue. So those who think that the future of the Earth is dependent on human efforts to save the planet either do not believe in God, or they have not studied His Word to see that He is taking care of Earth.

God never intended for the planet to last forever. God intended the Earth to be temporary. It will last only until God burns it all up (2 Peter 3) and places all humans who have ever lived in either heaven or hell—depending on how they lived on Earth (Hebrews 9:27; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The material, physical realm was intended to be temporary—by divine design. Quoting the psalmist, the writer of Hebrews explained:

You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up (1:10-12).

The post Man Can’t “Save the Planet”! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, so many of those who believe in evolution and man-made global warming act as if both theories are proven facts. When people bring up scientific evidence that contradicts either theory, the evidence often is either dismissed or “explained” away. Why? Because “everyone (supposedly) knows” that evolution and man-made global warming are proven facts. The problem is, neither evolution nor man-made global warming has ever been proven.

Second, defenders of evolution and man-made global warming have attempted to convince people that all smart scientists believe in these theories. Many students have accepted evolution and man-made global warming as factual, not because the evidence proves them to be true, but because their “brilliant” teachers declare that they are true. The fact is, however, many thousands of brilliant scientists around the world reject both evolution and man-made global warming. Furthermore, truth is not determined by the opinions of anyone. Truth is truth, regardless of who, or how many, believe it.

Consider a final similarity these two theories share: neither is based upon the truths of God’s Word. The Bible tells us that God created fish on day five of Creation, and man on day six. Man did not evolve from fish (or anything else) over millions of years. What’s more, the Bible indicates that Jesus, not man-made global warming, is going to destroy Earth. People should certainly try to be good stewards of what God created for us, but that doesn’t mean we should not drive cars that expel carbon dioxide, or that we shouldn’t raise cows that belch methane gas. The fact is, this Earth will remain the home of mankind until Jesus returns to judge the world and destroy the Earth.

The post Evolution and Global Warming appeared first on Apologetics Press.

I have fond memories of all of the dogs I’ve ever owned. My dogs kept me company when I was alone. They calmed me when I was stressed. They lifted my spirit when I was sad. Dogs can be wonderful animals to have around. They can be trained to do amazing things (check out the article on the back of this issue of Discovery). Aren’t you glad that God created animals that can be so helpful and enjoyable?

We need to be careful, however, not to think more of dogs than we should. Though dogs may be “man’s best friend,” we must keep in mind that dogs are just animals. They are not created in the “image of God” as humans are (Genesis 1:26-28), and they do not have an immortal soul as humans have (Matthew 10:28; Luke 16:19-31). Although we may become very attached to our dogs, we must keep in mind that the value of a dog in no way compares to that of a human.

Whereas many people seem to put their love and admiration for dogs on nearly the same level as their affection for people, God does not give these animals such value. One Bible encyclopedia called International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia summed up the Bible’s references to dogs in the following way: “References to the dog, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, are usually of a contemptuous character. A dog, and especially a dead dog, is used as a figure of insignificance.” Simply put, God does not attach great importance to dogs (or any animal for that matter).

As early as Genesis chapter one, God revealed that humans are on a higher level than the rest of God’s creation.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth….” Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:26,28).

Since the time of Adam and Eve, God gave His image-bearers (humans) the right to rule over all of the creation. Until Jesus returns and this world is burned up (2 Peter 3:10), God has given man permission to use His creation in order to survive and flourish. In addition to the rocks, minerals, and vegetation that God made for man’s benefit, God told Noah that all animals “are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Genesis 9:2-3).

Man not only has been given permission from God to train and work animals, and to kill animals for clothing or sacrifices (Genesis 3:21; 4:4), but also to eat animals—including dogs. As hard as this is for some Americans to admit, dogs are every bit as much an animal as cows, chickens, and pigs. I once asked a friend of mine from Southeast Asia what his favorite food back home was. I’ll never forget his response. Without hesitating, he said: “black dog.”

In America, it is common to eat cows. In other countries (especially India), it can be offensive to eat cows. At the same time, the eating of dog meat is very common in certain cultures. In fact, some people raise dogs, like many Americans raise cows, for the sole purpose of selling them as meat. Though eating dogs might gross you out, in actuality there is nothing wrong with it.

Personally, I don’t plan on eating dog anytime soon. But, sometimes dog lovers like myself need to be reminded that even though dogs can make great pets, they are still just animals. They are a part of God’s creation that He gave for man to responsibly subdue, rule over, and, if need be (and as gross as this may sound to you), even eat.

The post People, Pups, and Priorities appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Today, Antarctica is covered by roughly seven million cubic miles of ice, which represents 90% of all the ice on Earth. Scientists believe that the continental ice sheet at the South Pole is about 9,000 feet thick. What’s more, the average temperature at the South Pole is nearly minus 50 degrees Celsius. The Arctic isn’t much warmer, with an average winter temperature of minus 40 degrees Celsius.

Interestingly, neither Antarctica nor the Arctic has always been the frigid, icy areas that they are today. Scientists know that the South Pole was once warm and green. Thousands of years ago, its climate was almost sub-tropical—more like that of the central part of the United States. The fossil record indicates that in the past, Antarctica was lush with ferns, flowering plants, and conifer trees, and was the home of at least six different kinds of dinosaurs.

The Arctic was equally as sub-tropical. The fossil record indicates that freshwater ferns once thrived in the Arctic Ocean, while breadfruit trees, which today flourish in warm places like Hawaii, once grew in Greenland (inside the Arctic Circle). Even climate sensitive turtles and crocodile-like creatures once lived in the Arctic.

The fact is, our planet has gone through various stages of warming and cooling throughout its history. At one time, ice covered more of the Earth than at present; at another time, even the Earth’s Arctic and Antarctic regions were virtually ice-free.

We do not know for certain what caused the Earth to be warmer or cooler in the past (surely the affects of Noah’s Flood played a major role). What we do know is that our forefathers have been on the Earth “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50-51; Genesis 1-2). They survived times when the Earth was cooler, as well as when the Earth was warmer. Our presence on Earth in the 21^st century is simply more evidence that God ultimately is in control, and man will continue the cycle of life on Earth until our Creator returns (2 Peter 3:10-13).

The post Antarctica and the Arctic-Not Always Icy appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Ironically, the foundational principles of the American way of life, articulated by the Founding Fathers and subsequent spokesmen, speak to this matter. The Declaration of Independence boldly declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (emp. added). The United States Constitution announced: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America” (emp. added). The fifth amendment of the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights states: “Nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (emp. added). And Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, reminded his audience: “Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” (emp. added).

Yet, abortion advocates subtly shift attention away from the living status of the unborn baby to the “rights” and “choice” of the mother. Abortionists style themselves “pro-choice.” The hypocrisy and utter self-contradiction of such thinking is evident in the equally passionate stance on “animal rights.” Millions of dollars have been spent in recent years in attempts to “save the whales.” A “ruckus” has frequently arisen over the plight of endangered animal species, from the spotted owl and the dolphin, to the Snail Darter in the Little Tennessee River. One electric power provider in Utah and Colorado was fined $100,000, given three years probation, and ordered to retrofit its utility lines due to the occasional electrocution of protected bird species by its electric lines and equipment.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of two species of eagles by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of either eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg without a permit. “Take” means to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. Felony convictions for the violation of this act carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment (or five years under the Lacey Act; “Bald Eagle,” 2002). Get this: A human being may be fined a quarter of a million dollars and put in prison for five years for collecting eagle eggs, but that same person is permitted by federal law to murder an unborn human infant! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to society than pre-born humans!

To view the preservation of animal life as equally important—let alone more important—than the preservation of human life is a viewpoint that is seismic in its proportions and nightmarish in its implications. Whatever one’s stance may be with regard to the environment and animal life, the blurring of the distinction between man and animal, so characteristic of the atheistic, humanistic, and hedonistic perspective throughout human history, inevitably contributes to moral decline, ethical desensitization, and the overall cheapening of the sanctity of human life. Instead of fretting over the potential loss of an alleged cure for AIDS or cancer due to the destruction of the rain forests, we would do well to spend that time weeping and mourning over the loss of millions of babies whose unrealized and incomprehensible potential for good has been forever expunged by abortion. The remarkably resourceful potential of those extinguished tiny human minds to have one day found a cure for cancer far surpasses the value of moss and fungi in some Third World rain forest.

If the right to life applies to birds, fish, and mammals—whether in pre- birth or post-birth form—how in the world can anyone arrive at the conclusion that pre-born human infants are any less deserving of protection? What person, in their right mind, would assign more objective worth to an animal than to a human? The abandonment of sense and sanity in assessing God’s Creation, with His endowment of humans with qualities that set them miles apart from animals, has led to the nonsensical and utterly irrational thinking that presently permeates civilization. The widespread societal sanction of abortion, along with other morally objectionable behaviors like illicit drug use, gambling, and the consumption of alcohol, have together gradually and insidiously chipped away at the moral foundations of America. In the words of former United States Court of Appeals judge, Robert Bork: “The systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a general disregard for human life…. Abortion has coarsened us” (1996, p. 192, emp. added).

It is absolutely imperative that people view reality from the perspective of the Supreme, Transcendent Ruler of the Universe. As Creator, He alone is in the position to define value and human life. God is spirit (John 4:24). He created humans in His image (Genesis 1:26). Humans are not animals. Humans possess a soul—a spirit. Animals do not. Unborn babies possess a spirit, and are regarded by God as human (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:44). How dare we regard them any differently!

Should we be concerned about our environment? Should we give a proper measure of care and concern to the animal population? Certainly. God cares, and provides, for His nonhuman creatures (Job 38:41; Psalm 147:9; Matthew 10:29). However, in contemplating the “birds of the air” (which certainly includes the bald eagle and the spotted owl), Jesus’ own assessment of the situation is sobering, authoritative, and decisive: “[H]owmuch more valuable you are than birds!” (Luke 12:24,  NIV, emp. added; cf. Matthew 6:26; 10:31).

REFERENCES

“Bald Eagle” (2002), http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/protect/laws. html.

Bork, Robert (1996), Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: ReganBooks).

The post Babies, Eagles, and the Right to Live appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P.’s staff scientist. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington and Auburn University, respectively, with emphases in Thermal Science and Navigation and Control of Biological Systems.]

I recently went to a zoo with my family. While in the amphibian building, we noticed a dated video that was playing on the television monitors located throughout the facility. The video spotlighted a campaign to “save the amphibians,” many species of which were reported to be going extinct. The goal was to raise 50 million dollars for the conservation effort. Amphibian conservationists all over the United States are running to the rescue for our little slimy, hopping friends, even having formally declared 2008, “Year of the Frog.” Several zoos have “jumped” on board this effort. The Nashville Zoo’s website says that

Earth is facing the largest mass extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. After thriving for over 360 million years, 1/3 to 1/2 of the world’s approximately 6,000 known amphibian species could become extinct in our lifetime. In response to this epidemic, scientists and conservationists formed an Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP), including research, assessment and conservation in nature. For species that cannot be saved in nature, the plan is to rescue them before they are gone and protect them in captive facilities until the threats to the wild populations can be controlled. Nashville Zoo and other organizations supporting ACAP are participating in a global public awareness campaign, Year of the Frog. The goal of Year of the Frog is to raise awareness among media, educators, corporations, philanthropists, governments and the general public about the vulnerability of amphibians and the extinction crisis they face as well as generate much-needed funds to implement ACAP (“Year of the…,” 2010, emp. in orig.).

Amphibian Ark Communications says that their fundraising goal is to raise 50 to 60 million dollars to save several amphibian species (2010).

Now to the point: Imagine what could be done for the Lord’s cause if people contributed that money to Him instead of the frogs. How many souls could be reached if the conservationists declared 2008, “Year of the Human Soul” instead? Imagine how many missionaries could be sent out with one million dollars, much less 50 to 60 million. How many kingdom-advancing books and tracts could be published? How many television/radio programs could be aired? Imagine what could be done with the man-hours that are being poured into this effort.

Are the amphibians, as well as all living creatures, important to God? Yes. God feeds the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26) and clothes the grass and flowers of the field (Matthew 6:28-30). However, are animals more important than human beings, or even equal to human beings? No. Jesus said in Matthew 6:26 and 12:12 that human beings are “much more valuable” than them. Humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), unlike the animals. This is why humans were given a position of superiority over the created order, to have “dominion” over the animals and “subdue” them (Genesis 1:26,28).

Is it true that God would have us to be good stewards of the blessings that He has given us, including the Earth and its contents? Certainly. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) teaches this principle, and the Old Testament gives specific examples of how God expected the Israelites to be good stewards of the land and wildlife around them. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:4 indicates that oxen were not to be muzzled while stamping out the grain from the chaff (Barnes, 1997), that they might enjoy the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 5:18). Exodus 23:12 indicates that one of the reasons for the weekly Sabbath day was to give the animals a day of rest. Leviticus 25:1-7 and Exodus 23:10-11 indicate that every seventh year the land was not to be sown or reaped for food, but was to be given a year to recuperate and to provide food for, among others, the animals of the land. So, God expected the Israelites to consider the well-being of the animals, trees, and fields of the land. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us. We should not waste or be destructive with what God has given us. However, note one of the primary rationales for why we should be good stewards of the land. Deuteronomy 20:19 discusses the protocol that the Israelites were to follow in besieging the cities that they would be coming up against in their conquest of Canaan: “When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them; if you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree of the field is man’s food” (emp. added). Notice that trees that bore fruit were to be left alone in the making of siege equipment. However, what was the rationale for this? They were to be spared due to their role in sustaining human life. Plants, animals, and the Earth are only important insofar as their value to humanity. They are instrumentally good—not intrinsically good (Warren, 1972, pp. 38ff.).

Many in the animal rights, environmental, and conservation movements simply do not have their priorities straight on what should be the appropriate use of time and money. To pump millions of dollars into saving the animals or the environment rather than souls is to miss the point of our existence. When people sacrifice more of their time and money to try to save the world and the creatures of the world rather than to help the cause of Christ in the world—spreading the Word and serving humanity—then those things have become their idol. Regarding unrighteous men, Paul wrote

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:21-25, emp. added).

The rationale of the extremist elements of the conservation, animal rights, and environmental movements is based on a lack of faith in God as the Protector and Sustainer of life—Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:2-3) and in Whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). It is based on faith in the Earth as our savior, serving Mother Nature, instead of Father God. This worldly, faithless rationale says, “We cannot count on God! We need to save the world.” It is based on panic and anxiety, rather than on the peace that we can have through faith in God to care for us (Philippians 4:6-7). It is based on human arrogance, confidently asserting that we have the knowledge to save the world when, even if such were possible, we could hardly have the power to do so. Perhaps God in His infinite knowledge desires that some species cease to exist at certain points in history. Who are we to claim we could know such things?

The extremist rationale is carnally minded. We should not treasure the Earth or its contents by dwelling on them or prioritizing them above other more important matters (Matthew 6:19). We should, rather, “lay up for [ourselves] treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:20-21). The infallible principle of entropy treks onward. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that it will win every battle and implies that it will ultimately win the war, regardless of what we as humans do to fight it. Simply put, the “earth will pass away” (Luke 21:33). So, we should set our minds “on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2).

The Lord told us how this Earth will come to an end. Ironically, it will be a form of global warming. However, it will not be man-made global warming:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless (2 Peter 3:10-14, emp. added).

“Amphibian Ark Communications and Fundraising Plan” (2010), Slideserve, [On-line], URL: http://www.slideserve.com/presentation/4878/Amphibian-Ark-Communications-and-Fundraising-Plan.

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Warren, Thomas (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

“Year of the Frog” (2010), Nashville Zoo at Grassmere: Education, [On-line], URL: http://www.nashvillezoo.org/education_year_of_the_frog.asp.

The post Year of the Frog appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Society claims to be wiser than God in saying that spanking your children is bad because it teaches them to be violent and hurts their self-esteem. Yet God, through Solomon, said that “he who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24). Society has arrogantly elevated itself above God. Many in society say that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, yet God required the Israelites to inflict capital punishment for over 15 different crimes, and stoning someone to death was a typical form of capital punishment (Miller, 2002). By deluded human thinking, God is guilty of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Society says that God and government should be separate, but God says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalms 33:12). Society says that homosexuality and other forms of sodomy are acceptable lifestyles that should be endorsed, even encouraged. But God listed homosexuality as a crime worthy of death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13), and said that homosexuals and sodomites will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Society has elevated human beings to the status of gods capable of deciding what is morally right and wrong. Humans do not have to bow down to each other literally, to be guilty of self-worship. Elevating ourselves to the status of gods by disregarding the true God is sufficient. We are arrogant when we dismiss God’s directives, as if we need to understand the reasons behind everything that God tells us to do or not do in His Word. He says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). We are expected to trust Him (Hebrews 11:6).

As the cycle toward spiritual depravity progresses, humans move their focus still further downward–away from God–to elevate the animal to a status higher than humans (who already are considered higher than God). The reverence bestowed on animals by the animal rights movement of the last few years, illustrates to the world that America has reached this phase of the cycle, too. Think about it—in the last few decades, activists have splashed paint on women who wear furs, devoted themselves to saving the whales, encouraged using human embryos for testing to promote human welfare while seeking to outlaw the use of animals for research purposes, advocated going vegetarian, etc. It is a crime to break a bald eagle egg before the eagle has hatched, but killing a human baby before it has left its mother’s womb is acceptable to society (“Bald Eagle,” 2002). “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). God’s approach works. However, the end result of elevating animals is seen in many of the impoverished, primitive Hindu societies of the world, where people lay starving in the streets while healthy cows roam about freely because of their elevated status. Clearly, humans are incapable of making spiritual decisions effectively on their own. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).

Often, within this repeated pattern of spiritual decay, human eyes move down even further from God, and the Earth itself becomes elevated to the status of god. America is there, too. Enter the environmentalists. “Mother Earth” must be protected at all costs. “Save the planet.” “Go green.” “No carbon footprints.” Some advocate killing off certain humans that they deem as less useful to society in order to save the planet and its resources (cf. Harrub, 2006). The cultures of the past, those that Christian peoples have always regarded as pagan, are now being extolled for their worship of animals and the Earth. The theory of evolution says that the Earth is responsible for our existence and development—i.e., the Earth is our god. We must save it to survive, and we have the omnipotent power to control its destiny. Society says that we should not arrogantly “lord over” nature, since they are our ancestors and have as much value as we have. We humans have just happened to accidentally evolve further than them. (Consider Hollywood’s message to us about its view of nature and the sin of trying to control and have dominion over it in the movie Instinct). In stark contrast, God says that humans are to have dominion “over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26).

Should we be good stewards of God’s creation? Certainly. However, the Earth should never be elevated to the level of respect that it is being given today. Humans should never think so highly of themselves that they presume to control the destiny of the Earth. Contrary to the teachings of global warming advocates, it is not the almighty human who will destroy the Earth in the end. It is Almighty God (2 Peter 3:10-12). It is not murder in God’s sight to kill a plant, no matter how or under what circumstances it is done. God did not command capital punishment to be implemented on those who cut down a tree. Plants are not on the same value level as humans, regardless of whether a committee of morally confused humans decides such (cf. Willemsen, 2008)

On a positive note, if the typical pattern is repeating itself again, then the cycle may be nearing completion and may return to a sane, sensible appraisal of spiritual reality—returning us to the one true God, the Creator. America’s worship of itself, the animal kingdom, and the Earth has been going on for several decades, while worship of God is expelled as primitive. Unfortunately, divine punishment and destruction always occur before the cycle restarts. Although written 2,000 years ago, Paul’s words still hold true:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Bald Eagle,” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/protect/laws.html.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “Eliminate 90% of the Human Race?,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1821.

Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: https://apologeticspress.org/capital-punishment-and-the-bible-4433/.

Willemsen, Ariane, ed. (2008), “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants—Moral Consideration of Plants for their Own Sake,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (Berne: Swiss Confederation), April.

The post The Cycle of Unbelief appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Why does the committee believe that killing plants arbitrarily is wrong? “A clear majority also takes the position that we should handle plants with restraint for the ethical reason that individual plants have inherent worth” (Willemsen, p. 10, emp. in orig.). They explain their use of the words “inherent worth,” by saying that plants, like the rosebush, have worth “independently of whether it is useful or whether someone ascribes a value to it” (p. 7). So, when the card soldiers in Alice in Wonderland painted the roses red, they were doing more than merely upsetting the queen (who called for their heads). They were committing a heinous unethical act of seismic proportions and deserved to be punished for their flagrant disregard of roses’ inherent worth—and their right to be the color they were born, or should we say, grown with.

The truth is, human beings have “inherent value” that surpasses the physical realm, because God made us in His image (Genesis 1:27). Unlike the rest of Creation, humans have a soul, and will exist forever. We were created on a different plane from the rest of Creation. Plants have “instrumental value,” because they are useful to humans. God created and protects plants for that reason. Sometimes plants have a “relational value,” if we ascribe value to them (e.g., a tree “planted in memory of a person who has died” [p. 7], or a rose garden that we value because of its beauty). However, a plant’s value is not equal to that of a human being. Jesus emphasized this very point when He contrasted the two: “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you?” (Matthew 6:30). Humans are of far greater value than flowers or grass.

But the committee says that plants “strive after something,” and should not be hampered without “good reason.” After all,

recent findings in natural science, such as the many commonalities between plants, animals and humans at molecular and cellular level [sic], remove the reasons for excluding plants in principle from the moral community…. Studies in cell biology show that plants and animals, which share a developmental history lasting 3 billion years, have many processes and reactions that do not differ fundamentally at the cellular level…. Plants react to touch and stress, or defend themselves against predators and pathogens, in highly differentiated ways (Willemsen, pp. 5,15, emp. added).

They continue:

[I]t could be that plants…fulfill the necessary conditions for a kind of sentience [sense perception, consciousness, the ability to feel—JM]…. It is not clear that plants have sentience, but neither is it clear that this is not the case. It cannot therefore be argued that the reasons for excluding plants from the circle of beings that must be morally considered, have been eliminated…. The majority of the committee members at least do not rule out the possibility that plants are sentient, and that this is morally relevant (p. 15, emp. added).

Not quite half of the committee is doubtful that plants are sentient. So, almost half of the committee are not totally sure, but are “doubtful” that plants are sentient. “A small group considers it probable” that they are. Unbelievable! This sort of “reasoning” is the logical outcome of atheism and alienation from God. Are we to start considering the grass’s feelings before we step on the front lawn? If people of this stripe ever overcome their current doubt and convince themselves that plants really are sentient, plants will take their rightful place as “part of the moral community.”

They go further. “The majority opinion is that we require justification to disturb plants’ ability to develop” (p. 17). So, we have to justify ourselves to a plant before we “disturb” it. Concerning “ownership of plants,” the majority of the committee believes that plants are “excluded for moral reasons from absolute ownership. By this interpretation no one may handle plants entirely according to his/her own desires” (p. 20). So, if you live in Switzerland, your potted plant in the kitchen is legally protected. You might think that you own it and can do with it as you please, but you do not, and cannot. And, logically, if you mistreat it (forget to water it as often as you should, water it too much, fail to provide it with proper sunlight, or provide too much sunlight), you could be brought up on charges of—plant abuse. I wonder if plant nurseries in Switzerland will need to provide instructions, with every plant they sell, on how to respect the rights of plants.

Notice that as yet, if one has a “good reason,” it is not wrong to kill plants. But why should it matter if one has a good reason or not? If it is wrong to kill plants, why hesitate to say so forthrightly? Why the loophole? If plants have so many similarities to humans biologically at the cellular level, and it is not acceptable to kill human beings, why should it be acceptable to kill plants? Liberals say that we should not even kill human beings when they have committed heinous crimes worthy of death. Killing others through war is frowned upon, too. The only human killing that seems to be acceptable is euthanasia and abortion, and yet, it is not likely the committee would approve of plant abortion. They likely would rally around a dying plant to keep it alive rather than finish it off. So, why allow plant killing at all? The answer is that, without it, what would we eat? Eating animals is frowned upon by vegetarians. They insist we should exclude meat from our diets. But now killing plants is also being frowned upon. So what is left for us to eat? Insects and dirt? Should we become scavengers and eat only dead items, like road kill or rotting plants? Imagine a dozen starving human beings circling a tree waiting for an apple to die and fall off the tree. Notice the hypocrisy. “It is wrong to kill plants”—up until the point where it really affects me. If these plant-defenders, these champions of flowers, were truly loving and sacrificial towards plants, as they pretend, they would eat no plants or animals at all—any more than they would eat a fellow human being. In fact, given their cockeyed reasoning, they should not even eat dead plants or animals, since to do so would deprive poor little bacteria and microorganisms of their food source. Plus, it would be a desecration of the plant’s memory. Doesn’t the Swiss government committee care for them, too? The loving and sacrificial thing to do would be for humans just to die, and let the Earth be spared the horrible interference of humans.

Consider some implications. Ethically speaking, the arbitrary killing of a plant is now considered to be morally wrong, just like killing a human baby. Of course, to many in society, killing a baby, when it is on the opposite side of the mother’s skin, is not ethically wrong. So, that implies that plants now have more value than a human baby that is merely separated from us by temporary tissues and fluids!

If plants are now to be placed on a pedestal, the future will be bleak indeed. How long will it be until it is considered morally wrong to cut your grass and trim your bushes? What about the murder of trees in order to make room for new roads, houses, and buildings, or to make paper? Logically, all use of wood must be banned. We will have to live in tee-pees made from the leather of dead and rotting animal carcasses or build dirt huts, although doing so, again, would disturb the miniscule bacteria that inhabit such things. Killing cotton plants for clothing would be unacceptable. Humans will have to let the plants take over society. In fact, again, we humans just need to kill ourselves to protect the environment. Remaining alive will mean absolute submission to “Mother Earth” with zero interference so that we are not guilty of sinning against her or having dominion over her. Technological and economical progress must come to a screeching stop so that no harm is inflicted on the environment. We should eliminate all of our energy-using devices and technological advancements, and return to a more primitive time. But wait. There has never been a time when humans did not encroach on their environment. In fact, it would be virtually impossible not to affect the environment—even if you lived in a cave and ate dirt. Microorganisms reside in dirt. Even breathing air affects living entities. Don’t those many airborne microscopic organisms and viruses that are sucked into the human lungs have the right to be included in the “moral community”? This entire discussion is insane.

Willemsen, Ariane, ed. (2008), “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants—Moral Consideration of Plants for their Own Sake,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (Berne: Swiss Confederation), April.

The post Off With Their Heads! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet…. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

Vernelli wants to “save the planet—not produce a new life which would only add to the problem.” Vernelli went on to describe procreation as “something negative” and claimed that there were many other people with similar planet-saving ideas. Daily Mail reporters Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner concurred, saying, “Toni is far from alone.”

Thirty-one-year-old Sarah Irving seems to be in complete agreement with Vernelli. “[A] baby,” she said, “would pollute the planet…. [N]ever having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.” Sarah and her fiancé Mark Hudson told the Daily Mail, “In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.” Mark added: “It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth” (emp. added).

It is a sad day when having children is described as “something negative” and “morally wrong,” while murdering unborn children is hailed as “helping save the planet.” The Word of God says: “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward…. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them” (Psalm 127:3,5). Conversely, “[h]ands that shed innocent blood” (e.g., unborn babies) are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 6:16-17; cf. Isaiah 5:20).

Finally, while faithful Christians oppose all murder (Romans 1:29) including suicide, one wonders why fanatical environmentalists like Vernelli, Irving, and Hudson refuse to be consistent and simply take their bizarre beliefs to their logical conclusion. If having fewer people on Earth will help save the planet, environmentalists should kill themselves. After all, just like every baby, every “selfish” environmentalist “uses more food, more water, more land, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gasses, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

Courtenay-Smith, Natasha and Morag Turner (2007), “Meet the Women Who Won’t Have Babies—Because They’re Not Eco Friendly,” Daily Mail, November 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_ id=495495&in_page_id=1879.

The post Save the Planet…Abort a Child!? appeared first on Apologetics Press.