I recently reviewed several stories, studies, and presentations about Mount St. Helens since its eruption in 1980, the largest natural disaster in United States history to date. At the time, the talking heads and experts said the devastation to the ecology was so severe that it would most likely never recover.
The year 2020 marks the fortieth anniversary of the cataclysm and the experts were amazed to the extent of awe and wonder because of the exponential development and restoration of the natural splendor found around the active volcano; something that was extremely unfathomable in the Nineteen-Eighties. But nature proved it would rebound despite the prognostications. Nature and God, who created it.
Mount St. Helens presents a quandary for evolutionary humanists. The scientists agree that as powerful as the eruption was, Mount St. Helens (MSH) was tiny in comparison to others, historically and currently. The potency was so terrible that all life was destroyed and feared never to return. But, we were led to believe that a catastrophic event, purported to be billions of times worse, called the Big Bang, brought forth into existence all of the known universe, including our own galaxy. The intense heat of the earth’s primal formation coagulated to form a magma globule with all of the prerequisite elements necessary to lay the foundation for life over billions of years. Yet the experts told us that MSH would not afford the same kinds of odds even though its magnitude was infinitesimally smaller than the Big Bang.
Within a year of the eruption, new life began to spring up from the newly laid topsoil. Significantly, the heat of the lava and pyroplastic flow was not hot enough to destroy the seeds embedded within and prevent them from germinating. When the new plant life had time to proliferate, other critters, terranean and subterranean, were drawn to the new life spawning where life was deemed uninhabitable. Strangely, many creatures, mostly aquatic, survived the volcanic aftermath because it was winter when it happened and they had been in hibernation. Those that survived adapted to the changed environment.
Two lakes and a river were drastically altered.
Two government agencies had two opposite approaches to the dilemma regarding how to manage the new landscape. One called for a “hands off” approach while the other determined to take preemptive measures to prevent further catastrophes. Neither had the foresight to properly address the potentialities. Both played their parts in contributing to unintended consequences, assuming the best of intentions.
Proponents of the “hands off” approach wanted to study how nature would respond to the challenge. They unwisely chose not to allow the logging industry to harvest the millions of fallen trees or to remove the logs from Spirit Lake. The fallen trees presented future wild fire threats. The log mat on Spirit Lake prevented new life to develop in that part of the lake and cluttered the banks near the drainage tunnel the Army Corp of Engineers built. The other agency decided to plant pine trees and non-native grasses. Unfortunately, according to one government agency, an unknown source transplanted trout into Spirit Lake which upset the natural course of recovery, but it gave them an opportunity to research the fish with astonishing results.
One positive outcome from not removing the logs from the lake proved how trees could be buried upright with multiple layers of sediment reminiscent of similar phenomenon globally that defy the evolutionary presuppositions and give credence to the proposition espoused by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.
There is also the problem of the Toutle River Watershed. The river rerouted itself after its original course was blocked by sediment. The interventionists decided it was a good idea to counter the natural occurrence by strategically placing upright logs, forcing the flow onto its original course.
Whether right or wrong to intervene or not, it is peculiar that when government agencies want to engage in terraforming of magnitude, then they go right ahead without regard to the consequences. But if a private individual wants to improve the use of their property, they are either prohibited (in the name of protecting the environment or ecosystem) or they must go through the labyrinth of bureaucracy and at exorbitant costs because of burdensome regulations.
There is one more story I’d like to share.
I saw a news story about a teacher who duct taped a student’s mouth as a form of discipline because the little girl was being disruptive. Now substitute the duct tape with a face mask. The teacher will most likely be fired for the unnecessarily abusive tactic of using duct tape, and rightly so. She’ll probably be charged with child abuse, assault and battery, among other offences. But the same teacher would be commended if she had applied a face mask to the child by force. The only difference isn’t methodology, but the choice of medium.
The height of hypocrisy know no bounds. There is no consistency to the extent people want to justify themselves even if it means they contradict themselves in the process.