Skip to main content

The "Green Dragon"

Perhaps I'll start with this one. I shouldn't be surprised, I'm sure, but I still am regardless. At just the time we need to bring everyone in to address this issue, radicals from the "religious right" step in to act as corporate lackeys to cloud the issue. Watch this video.


Yes, that's right. Environmentalism is a false god that will destroy your Christian faith, bring down God, indoctrinate your children, establish global governance, turn us all into pagans, and so on and so forth. It's hard to find a place to begin attacking the stupidity and wrong-headed assumptions about this video. Just when people start to grown concerned about the state of the environment, the useful idiots are sent in to assure us that, it's ok, don't recycle, keep driving your Hummer, dump oil in the Gulf, whatever. Just don't worry, because God gave us dominion over the earth and we can do whatever the heck we want because God will take care of us.
Well, a person is perfectly free to believe that rubbish, but how about showing some concern, taking simple action, just in case God decides to let humanity swing in the wind because of our actions? She mentions "environmental stewardship," but disregards it entirely after that. The good steward doesn't just throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, I'll just do whatever and hope everything works out ok," they actively work to ensure a good end.
We are faced with very real problems, problems that require informed action. These problems will not just go away because we collectively decide to ignore them, and misinformed opinions from these morons certainly won't help. Recycle, turn off the lights when you leave the room, walk somewhere instead of driving if possible, perhaps consider taking a shorter shower or not using plastic bags. Hey, maybe even write your Senator in support of wind energy. I'm sure it won't make Jesus mad if you do, and it certainly won't turn you into a goddess-worshiping pagan.

Comments

  1. It's too bad they can't think about the Earth for what it is. An island in a sea of inhospitable ocean. Once it's ruined, there isn't any fixing it.

    All their confidence in God notwithstanding, I'd rather we be cautious and not poison the only planet we have.

    It's almost like this Christian dismissal of environmental responsibility is some kind of knee jerk reaction to Al Gore or something. He's a Democrat and we all know someone who is a Democrat is only out to destroy their "values".

    It's like all the negativity about Obama. No matter what he does, they have to oppose it, just because he doesn't have an (R) behind his name. John McCain could have won and done exactly the same things Obama has, and they'd be cheering that "Godly values" were being upheld. It's a sorry case of knee jerk opposition, facts be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, these people are so stupid.

    Even if you assume there is a God and that that God did give us dominion over the Earth, it's still stupid.

    If God did give us that Dominion, just like he would have supposedly given us free will and desired for us to use it wisely, it would want us to do the same for the Earth.

    There is neither rhyme nor reason behind them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...