|
|
|
|
For Life Science, GBS used a distance eduction course through an arrangement with another college, delivered through Knowledge Elements. The class used the textbook by John E. Silvius, Biology: Principles and Perspectives. I enjoyed developing critical thinking skills to evaluate naturalism and environmental ethics. I included a sample paper, below, as well as notes from the lab component developed by GBS.
Biology Question: Naturalism
Considering that some would call Silvius's '3-fold Responsibility of Man,' a strictly 'Christian' concept, what might be seen as the equivalent naturalistic responsibilities of man, if any. Support your answer using your understanding of naturalistic reasoning and environmental ethics.
Answer: Melissa L. Morgan
Humans on the earth have a “three-fold responsibility” according to Silvius (p. 10). In all areas, the Christian should be governed by the responsibility to serve and enjoy the Creator God (Ecc. 12:12; Mark 12:30), to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:31, John 13: 34, 35), and to be good stewards of God’s creation (Gen. 2:15 and Matt. 6:19-34). As a practical application, we should seek Him first, in all things, including the environment.
Biblical ecology and naturalistic ethics both stress consumption of resources based on needs, not wants; so both views would have similar ideas about being good stewards However, the naturalist doesn’t recognize God as creator. Biblical and naturalistic principles both support values that attempt to plan for tomorrow and conserve resources, but primary motives and worldviews differ in essential areas, influencing policy decisions and results. Therefore, I would consider the Three-fold responsibility to be primarily a Christian concept, although the naturalistic reasoning would support some of it.
God's Word explains that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, we have a responsibility to serve God, and love our neighbor, and we should treat humans with a special honor. However, we should also care for the environment as caretakers for God, rather than owners. We can consider how to improve the environment where we live, and use resources as wisely as possible, starting with our own property and neighborhood. The naturalist will reject the first responsibility, to serve and enjoy God, although many in the environmental movement worship the creature (themselves, or the creation which they call Gaia) rather than the Creator. The naturalist perspective, that doesn’t include God, would not recognize the Christian perspective of man as caretaker for God’s creation. Therefore, the naturalist would base his environmental ethics on whatever he or she perceives as responsibility toward man, not God.
Naturalism is “materialistic.” (Silvius, page 326) Although the naturalistic reasoning will not glorify God, the naturalist can still appreciate the beauty and worth of the environment from an aesthetic and utilitarian perspective.
Morris states that “Virtue theorists can maintain that what sociobiologists discover to be true is in fact true because of that universal human nature we all share. They can also hold that social agreement on moral fundamentals typically arises as a reflection of our recognition of what the virtues are. Likewise, to the extent that we do consider questions of benefit and harm in ethical decision making as utilitarians suggest, we can most deeply interpret what benefit and harm really are only if we do so in accordance with an account of human nature, and of the virtues. Fans of virtue can also hold that we have the nature we do because God has so endowed us. In addition, they can maintain that divine commands reflect that endowment and direct us as to how we should develop it…virtue theory of goodness, properly developed, can incorporate the insights of all the other theories, while avoiding their distinctive problems.” (Morris, page 100)
We need good information to make wise choices--and it is sometimes difficult to sort through information that has been tainted by naturalistic, mechanistic motives. Usually, the best choices--such as consolidating shopping trips, save money and conserve resources--are beneficial both to the family personally, and for the environment.
Despite (mostly) good intentions, the naturalistic view of environmental responsibility, based on man’s reason, often leads to disastrous results. One horrendous example is the naturalistic environmentalist’s support of abortion as a means of population control.
Stanley Monteith, M.D., reveals:
“A full discussion on the subjects of population control and occultism is far beyond the scope of this short monograph. Full documentation on these subjects will be found in my soon-to-be-published book, "None Dare Call It Genocide." At this point let me simply offer a few examples of the views expressed by those who publicly advocate population reduction and/or genocide.
David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Section, October 22, 1989, as saying: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth ...Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." 14
Michael Fox, when he was the vice-president of The Humane Society of the United States wrote, "Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth."
In "The First Global Revolution," published by The Council of the Club of Rome, an international elitist organization, the authors note that: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention ...The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Monteith, http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm )
Silvius quotes Patrick Glynn, who states:
“Where reason follows Spirit, the results are good; where it rejects or parts ways with Spirit, the results are invariably disastrous…The great error of the Enlightenment—for which the worst horrors of modern history are themselves the evidence—was the idolatry of reason, the belief that reason could replace God.”
The naturalistic environmentalist does not recognize absolute truth and therefore often cannot reliably tell right from wrong. At the most, an environmentalist with a belief in modern naturalism will only be convinced by utilitarian arguments, such as the need to study and save endangered species because of the interconnectedness of life. The evolution interpretation of natural selection is described as a process which occurs without intelligent design, “through which the environment influences survival and reproduction of individuals of each population, and in so doing, influences allele frequency in the respective gene pools. Individual organisms which inherit alleles that make them more fit to survive and reproduce will, in turn, pass along more of their alleles to offspring.” (Silvius, page 348)
Those who accept Darwinian evolution believe that the process of natural selection could eventually create more complex species, and that man is nothing more than the sum of his parts. Silvius explains that the naturalistic, mechanistic biologist views the body as “machine,” and studies the natural world in relation to stimulus and response. The naturalist would not recognize that God created man in His own image, and therefore of inimitable value. For a naturalistic scientist, his responsibility to a whale or a snail might be just as great as his responsibility to a human.
The naturalistic idea that man is simply a machine doesn’t recognize a higher authority than each individual’s opinion. Therefore, with the mechanistic biologist, if God doesn’t exist (according to this false view) why, really, should man care to adhere to any “arbitrary” rules or laws, such as the Ten Commandments? The naturalistic scientist may be more likely to taint the evidence in environmental research, in order to prove his premise--and increasingly, we are seeing evidence that this is occurring (such as recent scandals involving global warming studies).
Naturalism, which glorifies human reason over God, has no answer for the essential questions of life—why are we here? Is there a sense that life is more than just a sum of machine parts? These questions are essential to how we view the environment, as choices are made between the best interest of unborn humans and unborn eagles. Naturalism may be able to answer some of the “how” and “what” questions about the environment, but not the “why.”
Some naturalists might accept the responsibility to love their neighbor; perhaps they want to help others out of a desire to “feel good.” Most, however, want to “save the earth” rather than to serve God.
Biblically, concern for man and concern for all of Creation are intertwined. However, in a choice between the life of a man or an animal, the naturalist might choose the animal, if it was endangered. The natural scientist, if he admits to considering this, excludes God from the answer—meaning he will not be open to the truth. If he excludes God from his possible answer about the environment, then he is setting himself up as a god over the environment. Man is far more than “just an animal” as some in the secular scientific community view this issue, and yet man is also answerable to God.
As part of our three-fold responsibility to be good stewards, consumption of renewable resources is preferable, both biblically and ecologically. Stewardship of the environment is desirable in the Biblical and the naturalistic environmental philosophy. For instance, concern for coal, oil and natural gas reserves should encourage us to reduce their use. Conservation can combat ecological problems of pollution, as well as safeguarding future resources. As much as possible, we can substitute other renewable resources, such as solar, as well as develop methods to use coal, oil and natural gas with less pollution.
High energy demands by MDCs (More Developed Countries) lifts energy costs beyond reach of many in LDCs (Less Developed countries); it is Biblical and fulfilling the three fold responsibility to reuse, recycle and reduce all of our consumable items—this is good for us individually, by lowering household expenses. It is also good for the environment and good for our neighbors in LDCs, potentially lowering energy costs for everyone, including those in LDCs. However, I am not sure of the basic premise here, as the biggest current user of energy, and the worst polluter, is now apparently communist and anti-God (the government) of China. Naturalists say that America should unilaterally implement plans to reduce global warming, regardless of the negligible impact involved, or the potential harm to humans—perhaps this policy validates their beliefs, even if it doesn’t aid the environment.
Biocentrism doesn’t recognize a human’s right taking precedence over a non-human creature, when the rights come into conflict. This isn’t biblical, as the Bible clearly separates man from the animals—man is the only creature made in God’s image; however, the naturalist doesn’t accept that, and is prone to biocentrism and ecocentism. The text states that “Biocentrism confers the same intrinsic moral standing upon some animals, especially those that have human-like intelligence and emotions, as it does upon humans.” (Silvius, page 159)
Ecocentrism “attributes intrinsic moral value to groupings defined by scientific experts. Instead of focusing on defining right standing of the individual animal, the ecocentric ethic is concerned with rights of the species as an evolutionary unit. Likewise, biotic communities and ecosystems are granted intrinsic value.” (Silvius, page 150) This view also wouldn’t recognize the biblical view of the value of each individual human life, or the value of individual animal life either. The Bible is clear that man is to consider the needs of his animal—not just the species of animal.
I think the Bible is clear in assigning human responsibility to care for the animals and use natural resources wisely—however, without scriptural guidance, environmentalism goes awry. Without Scripture, naturalistic environmental ethics is built on a foundation of sinking sand, and cannot wisely fulfill the three-fold responsibility to God, man, and creation care.
Notes:
Monteith, Stanley K., M.D., The Population Control Agenda, http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm (Accessed 2/7/13)
Morris, Tom, Ph.D., Philosophy for Dummies (1999). New York, N.Y.: Wiley Publishing.
Silvius, John E., Biology: Principles and Perspectives (Fourth Edition, 2001) Dubois, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
In addition to textbook reading, I completed the lab component for Life Science. I have included a sample of information from a few of my experiments, below.
Starch:
I've finished 100% of the lab experiment. The results were as I anticipated; every one of the potato pieces were contaminated with mold and bacteria. I was not surprised by the results, because I have had some survival training. In the survival training, I learned to sterilize water--and that boiling is the best method to kill bacteria. I was also aware of airborne bacteria.
Protein Eating Pineapple
Yes, I got the results I anticipated, and I visited the web sites.
Proteolytic Enzymes,
http://www.nutritionalwellness.com/archives/2006/jul/07_proteolytic.php, stated this:
"Enzymes are proteins that facilitate chemical reactions in living organisms. In fact, they are required for every single chemical action that takes place in your body. All of your tissues, muscles, bones, organs and cells are run by enzymes."
New insights from websites and experiment? I found it interesting that proteolytic enzyme formula can help reduce inflamation.
At the website, http://www.highbloodpressureinfo.org/proteolytic-enzymes.html, I found out more about Proteolytic Enzymes--it help clean the blood, reduce inflammation, kill bacteria, and aids the heart. This website also listed natural sources for enzymes---and most (such as raw butter) are no longer available naturally. No wonder we are so sickly!