Posted on 03/18/2005 1:47:42 PM PST by Crackingham
"If you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself; that it may go well with you, and that you may live long." -- Deuteronomy 22:6-7, RSV
This admonition explains the evangelical view of Creation. (In the secular world we say "environment," which, as best I can tell, means "Creation minus people.")
On the one hand, humans, as the crowning achievement of God’s Creation, are held in high esteem since the Creation’s purpose is to sustain human life.
On the other hand, Creation’s viability is largely our responsibility.
Thus, we let the mother bird go, keeping Creation’s fabric of life thriving. That’s a strong biblical statement about preserving the environment. It’s also good common sense.
That the Creation exists to sustain us may sound presumptuous, but it flows from the faith-claim that we humans are created in the "image of God." This means human life is valuable above all Creation. Now, as a scientist, I cannot prove that human life is of such great value, it’s a matter of faith. But, a worldview which values a chickadee as much as a child is not evangelical.
When faced with difficult choices about the relative value of human life, evangelicals err on the side of humanity. Hypothetically, we choose the African child over the humpback whale and the Alzheimer's patient over the giant sequoia … every time.
Hows about we use DDT and choose human life over malaria?
The tag line is from Genesis 2:15.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.