The nature of nature is a matter of science.
The meaning and use of nature is a matter of religion. [1]
Religion is concerned with the use and meaning of nature, not the nature of nature.
Religion cannot tell science what nature is. Science cannot tell religion what nature means.
The limit of technology is set by the nature of nature. The goal or purpose of technology cannot exceed its limit, but the goal is set by religion [i.e., by culture] not by science.
Ecology is the nature of nature considered as an entire system.
Environment is used nature [i.e., applied ecology] and therefore falls in the realm of religion or culture. Scientists cannot tell us what to do with or about the environment; they can only describe the ecology which is the limit or basis of the environment. All environments are nature-as-used and therefore fall under the realm of goals and values, hence within the domain of religion-as-culture.
Ecology is a science; environmentalism is a branch of cultural studies and requires different analytic tools.
Ecology as the system of nature-as-nature has intrinsic internal principles and limits, but it leaves open the boundary conditions which are determined [set] by the next higher lever of use, the environment. Environment leaves open boundary conditions which are determined by the next higher level of use, society--and so on: society by culture; culture by religion.
Evangelical fervor--to redeem or save or alter--must be directed at people, not at trees; i.e., at culture, society, or environment, not a nature. Ecology is a bad vehicle for religious motives to express themselves.
1. The term 'religion' is used here in the academinc sense of Tillich, Geertz, Bellah, and others to mean the comprehensive meaning system of a culture and as such includes disciplines such as philosophy, theology, economics, politics, and sociology among others. Note carefully that this approach to religion is neither conventional nor well understood by most Americans.