Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issue of environmental degradation
Course of environmental dégradation
Environmental degradation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issue of environmental degradation
The Creation is an open letter E. O. Wilson wrote to a Southern Baptist pastor. With the environment declining, Wilson is desperate in seeking others to help conserve the environment. Therefore, in Wilson’s letter, he pleads to the pastor and any other Christian leaders to engage the community of the importance of saving the earth and its environment. His letter is also specifically aimed to the audience who: strictly regard the story of creation to having no connection with evolution, those who endorse to the “rapture” theological system. He communicates in a way as to persuade the pastor that taking care of the environment is a religious obligation. His persuasion focuses on “Creation” which is referred to as areas in our life which depend on nature and the planet. Wilson goes about this by sharing various examples of how we as human beings have lost interest for nature and have focused more on society. By this Wilson is saying that we have used nature as both a storehouse for resources and a place for garbage. Regardless of how Wilson shares his ideas and his concerns, it is clearly seen that he pleads to create a bridge which includes scientists …show more content…
As humans, we are prone to discern ourselves as authority figures over the other living species. As Wilson stated before, the many species living on this planet have been here before humans. Therefore, it is our duty to be mindful to them and their natural domain. Overall, I believe that The Creation: An Appeal to Save life on Earth, is a great book that provides an amiable “preface” into the issues faced with biodiversity. To those Christians who are curious about why they should care about being good stewards of the earth. More importantly, I think Wilson’s approach in presenting the scientific viewpoint, and stating facts to his audience of religious leaders will create a suitable relationship between science and
In Charles Darwin’s life he had helped make a significant advancement in the way mankind viewed the world. With his observations, he played a part in shifting the model of evolution into his peers’ minds. Darwin’s theory on natural selection impacted the areas of science and religion because it questioned and challenged the Bible; and anything that challenged the Bible in Darwin’s era was sure to create contention with the church. Members of the Church took offense to Darwin’s Origins of Species because it unswervingly contradicted the teachings of the book of Genesis in the Bible. (Zhao, 2009) Natural selection changed the way people thought. Where the Bible teaches that “all organisms have been in an unchanging state since the great flood, and that everything twas molded in God’s will.” (Zhao, 2009) Darwin’s geological journey to the Galapagos Islands is where he was first able to get the observations he needed to prove how various species change over t...
In the journal of Environmentalism as Religion, Paul H. Rubin discuss about how environmental is similar to religion. Rubin want everyone to know that the environment and religion are somehow similar in a way, which they both have belief system, creation stories and original sin.
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
The author of this book Steven Bouma-Prediger main argument is Christians need to live more earth-careful lives and being called to be caretakers is not optional. The responsibility to care for the earth is a part of our faith. Early in the book the authors takes you back to your first encounter with nature he does to make his topic relevant and personal to the reader. He then opposes his first question, how much do we actually know about where we live? He states that this question shows us how little we know about our trees, plants, flowers, and the patterns of the moon. This is also his first argument in which he said if we do not know our earth we are destine to use and abuse it. Understanding and caring about nature is necessary to live properly on this earth. Chapter 1 (page 21) “we are for what we love, we love only what we know, we truly know only what we experience.
Be denying the importance of nature God’s creation Christians are participating in a form of blasphemy
Author Eudora Welty, in her Autobiography takes readers back in time to explain how she became an earnest reader. Welty’s purpose is to reveal to readers her undying compassion for reading. She gives readers a detailed flash black with her description and rhetorical strategies. She does this by describing different phenomena that occurred and their influence on her. She uses imagery, repetition and shifts in order to paint a vivid picture of those events in her childhood.
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their purpose on earth for eons. The Bible tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been redefined in the process. Most institutions of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on faith. In contrast to prevailing thought at Goshen College, a literal six-day creation is foundational to the Gospel message. Combining evolution and Christianity makes one’s faith less logical and opens one’s science to new quandaries.
The twentieth century has witnessed the escalation of the creation - evolution debate through famous court cases and Supreme Court decisions on the teaching of evolution in public schools, culminating most recently in a Kansas Board of Education decision. As this highly controversial issue of the teaching of evolution in American classrooms rages on, it may be difficult for some individuals of Christian faith to form an alternative belief other than the extremes of creationism and evolutionism. Before discussing this issue any further, when I refer to strict beliefs in creationism or evolution as extreme views I am not necessarily implying that they are wrong, but are simply two views on completely opposite sides of the creation - evolution debate spectrum. For some creationists, accepting God as Creator as told in the Book of Genesis means the simultaneous rejection of evolutionary theory. For some evolution believers, accepting evolution ultimately results in the replacement of God as Creator with the process of evolution.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.”
Frankenstein was written by a woman named Mary Shelley. This story is considered to be one of the earliest examples of science fiction. Mary Shelley did not have a good life. There were always bad events occurring in Shelley’s life. Before the age of 30, Mary Shelley had lost her mother, sister, father, husband, and three of her four children. She battled depression all of her life and finally died in London at the age of fifty-four. After all of these terrible things that happened to her, people can probably understand how she came up with such a horror story like Frankenstein. In this novel, the main character is Victor Frankenstein. After Victor mother dies, he leaves and goes to England. In England is where he created this monster that he soon regrets. Victor abandons the creature, and the creature makes it his duty to find his creator and wreak havoc along the way. This horrifying sci-fi story could only be written and told by Mary Shelley, an individual that had such a horrible life.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
...tes on the path that the modern biodiversity movement has taken in the last two decades. Wilson does seem to think that we are going in a somewhat right direction, and he acknowledges that scientists have discovered many species in the time between the two publishings of his book. However, he asserts that although modern technology has given us a better shot at finding more species, the combined level of effort being put forth by humans is too low to make enough of an impact. The tone that Wilson uses throughout the main part of the book is very similar to the one he uses in the updated preface, meaning that his opinions have not really changed since the original printing. This is good evidence to support the idea that The Diversity of Life is still a relevant text, as his tone would likely have been noticeably different had the movement completely changed gears.
Considerable care and effort are needed to help students understand the difference between the methodology of science, with its naturalistic operational assumptions, and the naturalism as a worldview. (Anderson 89)Schools should not neglect teaching creationism when students are able to benefit from being informed about both beliefs of evolution and creationism. It is relevant as long as religious views are not infringed upon them.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
And Mr. Crichton theorizes that there are two reasons why we need to go back to environmental science, and leave the religion aspect behind us. First, we need to stick with the cold hard facts of science and we can’t rely on one government political party to solve all of our problems for us, this is an all-for-one type of deal, with no connotations involved. Our second reason he explains is that religions think that they have the answers to everything. But when it comes to environmentalism, we are dealing with discoveries that are still being found to this day, we need to evolve and mesh ourselves in order to accept new ideas and proceed with how to live our lives