Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Plus Ca Change... | Main | The Freedom to Mock »

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Garden of what?

The insidious way in which preservationists and deep environmentalists distort our perceptions,  and the ease with which the gullible mainstream media fall for the greenies' wordplay -- it's all been on display over the past 24 hours in the coverage of the  supposed "Garden of Eden" found in New Guinea.

The key is found in those three quoted words, "Garden of Eden." The story concerns several heretofore unknown species of animals discovered by scientists during an expedition to the Foja Mountains of New Guinea. Every story I've seen about the discovery plays up this quote from Bruce Beehler of the U.S.-based Conservation International organization: "It's as close to the Garden of Eden as you're going to find on Earth,"

Oh really? In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Garden of Eden is believed to be that place where animals and humans lived together in perfect natural harmony. Today, however, most deep-green thumb-suckers see humans only as a negative force in their relationship with nature, and, accordingly, they have corrupted the idea of the Garden of Eden to signify a place where animals alone live in perfect harmony with nature, without the despoiling effect of mankind.

I'm reminded of a Time magazine cover story of the early 1990s, entitled "Inside the World's Last Eden,"which described a place in deepest darkest Africa in which human civilization had not yet come into contact with animal "civilization." This was a new Eden, one bereft of humans.

Follow the logic in what was said in regards to New Guinea and Africa and see where it leads: to the conclusion that the entire Earth would be one big Eden if it weren't for we bad old humans.

And you still wonder why the late John Paul II termed ours a "culture of death"?

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 8, 2006 in Science | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Garden of what?:


Squeeze me but -ah - after Adam and Eve got the boot from Eden wouldn't the only things left be plants and animals ?

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-08 1:14:49 PM

My understanding of this powerful metaphor is that the Garden of Eden ceased to exist once the human left it. Now, the Greens are seeking to re-invent the Garden as a place with no humans.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2006-02-08 1:29:10 PM

Yes, but after Adam and Eve got the boot, Eden wasn't paradise anymore because sin had entered the world.

From Genesis 3:
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
       "Cursed is the ground because of you;
       through painful toil you will eat of it
       all the days of your life.

 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
       and you will eat the plants of the field.

Posted by: Mike Jenkinson | 2006-02-08 1:32:20 PM

Garden of Eden was made primarily for man. Animals and plants were there for his enjoyment. And it was about 6 000 years ago not millions of years ago.

I guess the souvenir of Eden is still lingering in human soul. That is why man keeps naming places of peace and beauty gardens of eden.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-08 2:00:57 PM

In my opinion the garden of eden is where I'm sitting right now. Otherwise I'd move my, um, chair. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-02-08 2:07:16 PM


Good point!
I live in a warm, comfortable house.
Food in the kitchen, cold beer in the fridge. Keeping up to the bills (barely).
Great family.
Fast car in the garage.
The ability to vent my silly opinions here and elsewhere.
And the commitment and ability to fight to defend it all.

Really more of a "Garden of Eden" than most of our ancestors could wish for, all created by freedom and democracy.
No doubt very scary to the Islamofascists, indeed.


Posted by: Mad Mike | 2006-02-08 2:45:43 PM

I really think you are looking too deeply into the statement that the region in New Guinea is the "Garden of Eden". The person you quoted had no intention of literal meaning. He simply meant that what they found was a peaceful, untouched segment of nature that has thrived independently (or in spite of) human intervention.

Please proof read your future messages to make sure you are not wasting people's time on this blog.

Posted by: Jarvis | 2006-02-08 3:20:48 PM

Oh and anyone believing that the world is 6000 years old denies so much to themselves and hides the truth that human curiosity brings to life.

Posted by: Jarvis | 2006-02-08 3:24:27 PM

So I guess the point is, back at the ranch, er, garden, that eden itself contained a less than optimal serpant. I suspect it's all some sort of attempted marketing trick, like original sin.

Which reminds me, I've got fix my, um, chair. Yeah, that's it.

Here's a quote from Matt Ridley writing in The Guardian on 2003-04-08:

"For the past century the world has got steadily better for most people. You do not believe that? I am not surprised. You are fed such a strong diet of news about how bad things are that it must be hard to believe they were once worse. But choose any statistic you like and it will show that the lot of even the poorest is better today than it was in 1903. [...] All this has been achieved primarily by that most hated of tricks, the technical fix. By invention, not legislation."

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-02-08 3:30:17 PM

Funny you should mention John Paul II. He also spoke regularly on the need for human beings to be more respectful of the earth and environment. He lamented the numerous failures of governments and individuals to address the serious environmental challenges of our times.

I believe you could quite easily fit JP II's notion of a "culture of death" into the way we treat the natural world.

Posted by: newsjunkie | 2006-02-08 4:05:43 PM

IMO this MSM chatter is a "Strong, Marice Strong" message. To MS, the human hating Kyoto author, people are vermin - except, of course, rich elitists like himself.
Animals and Plants, insects and fish are living things, just like people but the latter are subservient to Man. God planned it that way and Eden DOES feature Man; in the starring role. The abuse of nature INCLUDES abuse of Man. Man can create gardens anywhere and Man can import animals into his gardens. Human life is lived in a garden with animals, plants, insects and birds - even if people are living in a twenty tower cement sky-rise. Why? Because living is a natural event; it is nature at work in a small universe (that of the human body). Why do people think that humans are less miraculous than 'nature'? People can survive in a earthly hell by using their imagination to escape their surroundings; imagination to escape their environment is the origin, I believe, of this 'non human' quest for perfection in places without people. Only people can create real hells so the deductive logic of many people perceives that real Heaven can exist only without humans. Inductive reason gives the mind many options - people should shun 'flat logic' like this MSM drivel; that the REAL 'flat earth' people promote (eg that Eden can only exist without the presence of Man). BTW most schools label inductive logic users as 'special needs' students. No wonder the nation has so few bright lights.

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-02-08 4:49:33 PM

Interesting to see so many different takes on what is essentially an ongoing propaganda campaign promoted by self hating secular humanists and propogated through our mainstream muttonhead media (MMM?)
It is the attitude of these people that really yanks my crank! Why do we have to be subjected to the constant hyperbole on every subject?

Terry ...I feel your pain.

Posted by: PGP | 2006-02-08 5:25:13 PM

God's command to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." (Genesis 1:28)

Adam and Eve were supposed to fill the earth (including the Garden of Eden) with their offspring - ie lots of humans. This command was given before they sinned and 'got the boot'. So the Garden of Eden was meant to be populated by humans, animals, trees etc..., with humans in charge as God's stewards.

By the way, that website has a link to an article about scientists searcing for Bigfoot....do real scientists actually search for Bigfoot? I didn't think they did.

Posted by: timmyz | 2006-02-09 12:39:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.