God will destroy them that destroy the earth (Rev. 11). Neither selfish
self-importance ("Sorry the Grand Canyon loses its natural habitat, but my
interests are more important than the creations of God") nor rationalization
("the earth changes naturally, so therefore foisting our own violent change
on it is perfectly OK") will excuse anyone from being answerable to Him for
the disrespect we show His Creation.
Too what period are we trying to restore the canyon? 1955, 1830, 1211,
3000BC... Our world is dynamic not static. To suggest that it is in some form of
steady state is to ignore all the alterations that occur over time. Once we
restore it, do we fight nature to prevent it from changing? Who decides what
should and should not be in this canyon? Should we take the simple minded
approach that it should be like it was in 1955? Who flipped a coin and decided
that was the ultimate utopia?
The headline leaves a lot to be desired. The Glen Canyon Dam provides benefits
that otherwise wouldn't be there. Sorry the Grand Canyon loses some
sandbars but people are more important than sand.
Be wary of anything done for "environmental reasons." Especially if Ken
Salazar is involved.Today, the environmentalists would probably
fight against any activity that would wash away huge amounts of soil and result
in a "gaping scar" that is the Grand Canyon.Their
motivations may sound pure, but their actions are often aimed at crippling human
betterment, industry, and capitalism.