Creationist = Anti-Environmentalist?

{Note from Adminnemooseus - There is also a previous topic on this theme - See By their fruits shall ye know them. (re: Fundamentalists and the environment)This has always puzzled me. It seems that there is a correlation between Creationism and people who are anti-environmentalist.That is, I see a lot of people who believe in Creationism and are also Global Warming deniers.Or supporters of Creationism, but oppose to the Endangered Species protection.One needs look no further than the current administration for examples.It always bothered me as to why.I have formulated three hypotheses:1) Prey on the Ignorant -
a) There are people/corporations who stand to make money from a position on anti-environmentalism (Big Oil, deforestation, developers, etc.).
b) These people need at least a portion of the public to support their cause.
c) They know that there is a group a citizens (Creationists, Ditto-heads, Fundamentalists) who will not question authority.
d) They pay influential members of this group to convince the flock to follow.Resulting in -
e) Creationists who support environmental degradation.2) Destroy the world!
a) Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
b) The Bible suggests that at some point the world will end and that this will be good for Creationists.
c) Therefore, anything which hastens the end of the world (war, disease, environmental degradation) is defacto a good thing.Resulting in -
d) Creationists that support environmental degradation.-or-
3) Lack of Biblical Comprehension
a) Creationists hold to a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
b) The literal interpretation of the Flood story is "this is something that happened".
c) The message of the Flood story is "man is responsible to protect the animals, not just himself".
d) Because only the literal interpretation is considered, Creationists learn B but not C.Resulting in...
e) Creationists who don't care about environmental issues.Thoughts? Refutations?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note at topic of message.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

While driving home a few weeks ago, NPR was talking about young new evangelical christians that are stepping away from their elders and show more concern for the environment. It was interesting to hear about how they are shunt by their fellow evangelists for believing that we should protect our environment.Anyway, I personally think that the anti-environmental campaign is actually a pretty big con done on the evangelical community by big corporations. Why pick the evangelical community for this deception? Evangelists, especially creationists, are usually incapable of telling the difference between fact from bullshit.I've asked this question before. What do they think now that President Bush (aka Jesus Christ II) finally admits that there is such a thing as global warming and that it is caused by man?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

re: Bush's flip flopLike so many other things about Bush, these people aren't going to change their opinion at all. In fact, they are extremely likely to present this view: "Bush has always said there way Global Warming."I remember watching a show called "CrossBalls" which was on Comedy Central. the gimmick was inviting real guests to debate guests who were actually just improv comics being outrageous.In one case, one of the comic guests was arguing something to the effect that illegal drug use should be manditory for all citizens and the arch-conservative real guest was arguing that drugs are bad.The comic asked her to name any historical figure who didn't use drugs.He said Bush.Sigh

Hi, Nuggin.I raised that question a while back, and some while later came across news stories indicating some evangelicals were having conversion experiences about the environment. Here's the later post about those environmentalist evangelicals: By their fruits shall ye know them.I think those well-intending evangelicals have maintained their active interest, but they come under heavy fire from others who see them as offering comfort to the enemy.I suspect the root of this resistance is the right wing political bargain between oligarchy and theocracy.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

i think they might care more about the environment if it weren't such a "liberal" issue. they don't want to be lumped in with the "baby killers" about anything. i drove past a church the other day whose sign said "global warming is better than eternal burning." how can people really be that stupid? you don't have to burn in hell to prevent this planet from purging us.i agree with the idea that it may be a scam by big business to rope in supporters. since they tend to believe whatever their pastor says, they can be easily bought.also, it requires personal responsibility instead of blaming and yelling and damnation.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' -- Anne Coulter.

I've been debating with a creationist (if you can call it that, when his position seems to consist of insisting that I am naive and not party to the special knowledge he has gained from the Bible and his relationship with God), and interestingly he's always throwing the "global warming conspiracy" into the mix as well. The thing about this person, though, is that he consistently swears that he is not part of any established religion. It seems unusual to meet a fundy who's not part of a flock but there you go. There's good evidence, though, that he listens to people like Kent Hovind. Are any of the creationist evangelical leaders like him spreading misinformation about global warming? My guess is that's where he's getting it from.

Actually, I think the number of fundies I've met who have insisted on being "non-denominational" probably is the same number as the fundies who have admitted to being part of a denomination.Among some of these people, there is currently this idea that if they don't belong to any denomination then the rest of us will automatically assume they are very wise and very smart. I don't know how they arrive at this conclusion. When I talk to them, they seem to be either pulling stuff out of their asses or are borrowing quotes from fortune cookies.Anyway, just saying that there's nothing new about fundies trying to insist on not being part of any denomination.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Ah, right. I'd never met any before. This one says the Bible is his only authority. He's always on about prophecies, gemmatria, etc. I'm sure he wants me to believe that he is some kind of independent thinker, but at the same time he keeps trying to get me to watch Hovind videos LOL. Is anyone here familiar enough with creationists like Hovind to know if they are telling everyone that global warming is a myth?

That will give you a feeling for his position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

*ahem*i thought it was god's property.

Also, he has said: It's not his main focus, but he slips it in there when he thinks he can.You can read the full statement here

As a matter of fact, I am not aware of a single prominent creationist who have not spoken out against global warming. Bush probably finally admitted that global warming was real because he didn't want to look like an idiot anymore.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Yes, this would also explain why I've just been told that evolution is part of the communist conspiracy. There's not an original bone in this guy's body.Oh, I just had to add that he says he phoned up Hovind's son the other day to see if everything was all right. Can you say C-R-E-E-P?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.