One last whine about my troubles (now over) in connecting to my own blog. Because of those troubles, I was not as interested in keeping current on the blog. Consequently, I missed an opinion piece on a subject I flatter myself to be knowledgeable on and only found it because of a rebuttal. I still feel like commenting although .
Mr Kim wrote an article on the 24th that tried to use science terminology to describe moral issues, their cause and problems.
However, this pollution is now caused by knowing too much on the part of humans in the name of science, which is contrary to the primordial will of the Creator. As a result, humans are under the threat of being liquidated from the earth, just as the first man was expelled out of the Garden of Eden. Lamentably this time they have nowhere to turn to except the total and final self-annihilation. Pollution will prevail more and more and civilization will recoil further and further.
In doing so he really showed that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Stripped of it's anti-science, Hellfire-and-damnation language, his simple point that our consumer culture is getting out of control can be, with some difficulty, found.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Thomsen rightly points out the big flaw in Kim's argument. The religious message steps on the anti-pollution argument.
Religion doesn't encourage environmental protection because it's more concerned with tabloid-oriented notions of ``life after death. ``Heaven is what's truly important. Why bother caring for the Earth?
However, he gets a little tangled up in Kim's wrongly-applied scientific terminology; it looks so much like a scientific response is called for but I don't think it is.
Mr. Kim is simply overzealous in his religion and needs to be reminded that most religions carry this same message, and it is one of the few points that modern science and environmentalism are in accord with religion. Again, stripped of the medium, his message is valid. If only the message were easier to find.