To the editor:
I read with interest the guest columns presenting opposing views on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission's deliberations (and recent decision) on the future of the Mexican gray wolf recovery program. Both writers presented scientific facts -- and in one case, misstatements of fact -- to back up their conclusions. I'd like to add a different voice to the debate -- the theological one.
Certainly it is difficult to join biology with theology, but both disciplines are hard to separate in their respect for life. The book of Genesis abounds with references to life and the sacredness of ALL of it, not just a few select winners. It describes the creative process in the archaic language of the times, of course, but the bottom line is that Earth brought forth teeming life, "swarms," as it says in Genesis1:20, quite possibly the Biblical word for biodiversity.
Theology sees diversity as a good thing, even a godly thing, because fertility is sacred. Similarly, biologists see diversity as a good thing because it maximizes offspring in the next generation.
Seems to me, then, that the best available science and theology agree: The way to save the endangered Mexican gray from extinction is to give it the best shot possible to proliferate in natural surroundings. This means continuing to give this magnificent animal, one of God's creatures, the full protection of the ESA (the modern-day version of Noah's Ark!) and keeping human interference in its ability to repopulate to a minimum. To do otherwise will certainly erase this iconic species from our landscape forever.
I read with interest the guest columns presenting opposing views on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission's deliberations (and recent decision) on the future of the Mexican gray wolf recovery program. Both writers presented scientific facts -- and in one case, misstatements of fact -- to back up their conclusions. I'd like to add a different voice to the debate -- the theological one.
Certainly it is difficult to join biology with theology, but both disciplines are hard to separate in their respect for life. The book of Genesis abounds with references to life and the sacredness of ALL of it, not just a few select winners. It describes the creative process in the archaic language of the times, of course, but the bottom line is that Earth brought forth teeming life, "swarms," as it says in Genesis1:20, quite possibly the Biblical word for biodiversity.
Theology sees diversity as a good thing, even a godly thing, because fertility is sacred. Similarly, biologists see diversity as a good thing because it maximizes offspring in the next generation.
Seems to me, then, that the best available science and theology agree: The way to save the endangered Mexican gray from extinction is to give it the best shot possible to proliferate in natural surroundings. This means continuing to give this magnificent animal, one of God's creatures, the full protection of the ESA (the modern-day version of Noah's Ark!) and keeping human interference in its ability to repopulate to a minimum. To do otherwise will certainly erase this iconic species from our landscape forever.
SARAH KING
Flagstaff
