Fungus, yeast, and children...

National Geographic breathlessly announces: "Even after centuries of effort, some 86 percent of Earth's species have yet to be fully described, according to new study that predicts our planet is home to 8.7 million species. That means scientists have cataloged less than 15 percent of species now alive—and current extinction rates mean many unknown organisms will wink out of existence before they can be recorded."

So let me get this straight...

Our Calamity Jane jounalists are now on a crusade to get us to grieve over and mourn the fungi and yeasts we've never known, but we're not to shed a tear for the baby in his mother's womb silently screaming and writhing in pain as his little body is torn apart by a knife welded on the end of a vacuum being wielded by a man paid by the mother to slaughter her child?

Did I have that right?

And while I'm asking questions, am I allowed to make that point as a pastor, or do those R2K (Ridiculous Two Kingdom) men require me to warn all of you that, the extinction of species and slaughter of the unborn being political matters, everything you just read was written with my pastor hat off and my not-speaking-for-Jesus-or-His-Church hat on?

Ridiculous, ain't it?

(TB)

 

Comments

Yep.

I didn't see anything in the article that asked us to "grieve and mourn".

Ridiculous. But it shows how people tend to love: in the abstract only. Liberals love the species--save the fungi! But not the individual representative growing on the shady side of my house. The individual I know can die for all I care, there are mitigating circumstances and who am I to intervene--but save the species! The population is lovable because it can be loved from a distance. Abstractly. Text "Save the mosquito" to #### and pass me the OFF.

Perhaps there is a connection? Not that R2K types are choosing to be on the same team--but they may have the same recruiter. He tells them they can preach love for God and love for men but as a matter of principle, please keep it abstract, er, I mean, spiritual.

Right--the article actually asks us to repent. But that implies mourning and grieving for our sin against nature.

The loud call for repentance is at the end: "Unfortunately, extinction rates have accelerated to ten to a hundred times their natural level, Worm added."
Plus this: "We're throwing out entire books without having a look at them." (referring to the "books" of information lost when species go extinct.)

Extinction is accelerating beyond the natural level and we're the ones throwing out these species. He could have said, "we're losing" but he said we were active book-burners.

I don't see this as a "loud call" for anything...the author calls it unfortunate. It is a big leap to assume that he is demanding repentance, grieving, and mourning, that he only cares for yeast and fungi, that he doesn't care for the unborn, and neither should anyone else. I find the response to be disproportionate.

After nosing around in the dirt, Worm reports on his findings...

Isn't God hilarious?

Add new comment