I had an interesting discussion the other day with my parents. The discussion arose because there was a contractor who wants to put in some condos at the top of Wolf Creek Pass. Without going into all the specifics of that circumstance, it did cause me to think on the subject of creation as a whole.
Whether intentionally or not, when we think of the wilderness we generally think of it in terms like “pristine” or “pure” or “virgin.” All these things bring about the idea that the wilderness, apart from any interaction from man, is the epitome of nature, and that man can only corrupt nature.
To the extent that man is sinful, that is true. However, an un-manned wilderness is most certainly not the best possible functioning of nature, despite what environmentalists declare (especially those that think the world would be better off if humans just didn’t exist at all). Non-sinful man, acting in harmony with nature, yeilds better results than nature run amok with no human influence whatsoever.
This is seen both philosophically and Biblically. Since it is easy enough to demonstrate Biblically, I will do so first and then secondly I will present the philosophical evidence for this too. The Biblical proof is found in the creation story of Genesis when we are given God’s purpose for creating man in the Garden of Eden.
Good Presbyterians know that the Westminster Confession of Faith Larger Catechism begins with the question “What is the chief end of man?” and the answer, of course, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. However, while this is the umbrella purpose, there is also a more specific purpose for which man was created, what you could call the original job description of man. When God created Adam, He gave him a specific role to play too:
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
The purpose of mankind was to “subdue” and “have dominion” over all the living things on Earth, and the Earth itself. It is certainly possible to debate what the terms “subdue” and “dominion” mean in the above passage; however, it is not the intent of this blog entry to go into that matter. Suffice to say that man’s creation was intended to have some impact on the rest of creation, and it is obvious that the original design of man included certain things about his relationship to the rest of creation. Therefore, it is obvious that God’s intention was not for nature to exist in “harmony” apart from man’s influence. Nature was intrinsically designed such that man’s role in creation (when man is not sinful) benefits nature, because it was after man’s creation that God declared all that He had made to be good.
Philosophically, this is also fairly self-evident if not for the fact that we’ve been conditioned to think of wilderness apart from man as being better than wilderness governed by man. One easy example to point out is the domesticated dog. Dogs in the wild do not live nearly as well as pet dogs, because pets are taken care of by their owners (naturally, this is a generalization as there are some people who abuse their animals–but these are the exceptions). These dogs do not form packs that hunt down other wild animals, they do not exhibit hostile behavior unless their owners are threatened, and they fit right in to society with men of all types, such that they are called “man’s best friend.” Housecats are similar, as are goldfish, hampsters, snakes, crocodiles, lions, and pretty much any other animal that man has chosen to ever domesticate.
Naturally, since the world is fallen, there aren’t perfect relationships between men and animals. For instance, we know that sometimes trained tigers will maul their human owners. Sometimes even pet dogs will bite children. Still, even with these exceptions, it is self-evident that the animals in question behave better while domesticated than they would in the wild (for instance, a wild tiger would maul a human instantly rather than give years of non-attack before reverting to his wild behavior for one momentary attack).
As a result, nature that is domesticated is better not only for humans but for the animals living in nature too. Unattended, nature becomes (as Darwinists are fond of saying) “Red in tooth and claw.” But under man’s guidance, animals that normally would not get along cohabitate–just like dogs and cats living in the same house. It is only a person who would take an extremely odd view of the term “better” who would say it is better for animals to be undomesticated than to be domesticated.
Again, this argument is not an attempt to say that everything that men do is automatically better than nature left alone. Men do sin, and as such they will sometimes exploit animals, torture them, or do other sinful acts. However, none of these sinful actions in any way denies the fact that men who engage in their correct role make nature better than nature would be if left totally devoid of human contact.
In other words, man (contrary to the claims of the environmentalists) is good for nature and nature will suffer if man is removed.
