Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?

Does the literalist view that mankind has total dominion over all other animals and that all the plants and animals were placed on the planet for mankind's use (with only specific limitations per the laws of Moses) lead to, or justify, an unreplenishable level of natural resource use?Do the creationist science theories that all mineral resources were created or deposited in less than five millennia, and that vegetative resources were planted in situ with no evolution of a worldwide, integrated ecosystem, coupled with the view of mankind's god-given resource use rights pose a real threat to sustainable natural ecology?Does the creationist/literalist belief that the world in its current physical state soon will cease to exist contribute to, or possibly spur, continued rapid depletion of unreplenishable habitat and resources.Do the literalist natural world views and creationist "science" theories constitute radical propaganda that foster ecological ruin?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-25-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-25-2003]

Note: Buzsaw's quote of my original question is correctly pasted. At about the same time as Buz was constructing and posting his reply, I edited my question to remove the word "terrorism" because, upon re-reading my question, it appeared unduly alarmist and a little politically incorrect considering the time of year and our current political climate.Peace and much good fortune to everyone in the New Year

Dear Adminnemooseus:"Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?" or something along that line will do. You may edit as you wish. What I am trying to do is get a discussion going relative to the cavalier attitudes I sometimes encounter when arguing with literalists about the need to incorporate long-term resource management practices to protect wetlands, rainforests, coral reefs, and tital pools.{Done - As per the suggestion you pulled from the tital pool - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2003]

That's why we have real hard news like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to fill us in on reality.

Quetzal: I think my original intent with this back about a year ago was based on a heated argument I had with a fundie regarding unsustained use of both natural resources and domesticated livestock. His argument was based solely on his take that in Genesis Chapters One and Two, God gave Man unbridled reign over all other animals and vegetation to use as Man would forever.My argument is that this fundie outlook prevails today worldwide wherever corporate greed is driven by the cavalier attitude that we can take, take, take regardless of the adverse effects our taking has on the Earth's environment. In fact, the only secular argument I encounter is "that it's cheaper" to do it the way it's being done. Like using fossil fuels that release previously naturally bound carbon into our atmosphere as gas.But now you ask me to provide "evidence" that this fundie mentality regarding man's providence over animals and vegetation has led to ecological disruption ... well, I will have to do some research to provide links between specific resource-raping activities, the corporate entities responsible, and the particular fundementalist attitutes that corporate bosses may possess.Before I respond, let me say, it's been a year since I initiated this thread. I had a very serious heart surgery last spring and stop posting. I've forgotten a lot of stuff I was into back then. And until today, I was not able to get my password to activate. So, you may not see much of me ... we'll see.Regards, Abshalom

The fundamentalist view I am referring to is the Utilitarian Earth View by which proponents claim the earth and everything in it belongs to man.James Watt, a professed evangelical and Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior in the early 1980s, had an article, "Ours Is the Earth," published by the Saturday Evening Post (Jan/Feb ’82). In the article, Watts made it clear that he viewed Earth as "merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life...The earth was put here by the Lord for His people to subdue and to use for profitable purposes on their way to the hereafter."Watt’s career at Interior was not cut short by his chauvinistic anti-environmental political approach, which would’ve turned the Great Plains into a moonscape of craters and toxic pools on behalf of Adolph Coors and his corporate buds. No, Watts was brought down by his big fat mouth when he denounced the members of the federal coal-leasing commission as "a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple." The commissioners had shown the audacity to resist Watt's demented shale-oil strip mining scheme.So like Earl Butz before him, Watt's political career was ended not by a reaction to his religious-based wastrel policies, but by a racist slur.