As one long convinced of the scientific facts of humanity's destructiveness,
and of the terrible tragedy this represents, I did not need Wilson's persuading.
But I am convinced that he has taken the right approach, the right tone. He
proceeds with respect. He does not water down, but does write in a language far
simpler than many intellectual popular science books (such as his own
difficult-to-read Consilience). He mixes fact with anecdote to keep the
reader engaged.

If this formula does not succeed in engaging the drive to dialogue for both
parties, then the biophillic may have lost one of their last hopes for a grand
compromise. Of course they can always take the inside route – go religious,
work that angle as apparently Bishop Spong does.

One of the unstated currents of The Creation is the sense of
nearly-mystical ecstasy that can be found in the presence of nature. This is
also a hallmark of Leopold's writing, and of the aforementioned Bishop Spong's.
Set aside the "rational" arguments for cooperation between science and religion,
and think on this description of the "charismatic experience" of religion, from
Moojan Momen's The Phenomenon of Religion (p94):

"This experience makes those involved feel that a gift has been bestowed upon
them. This gift may include a feeling of being in a 'wider life than that of
this world's selfish interests,' a sense of being in continuity with the powers
of the universe, and a sense of elation and joy as the sense of self and
attachment to this world is abandoned. There is an inner equilibrium and calm.
It has been described as the experience of saintliness."

This is the ecstasy, or going out of self, that so many religious writers
emphasize. Working in a garden, hiking through the less-tamed natural areas,
or gazing into a microscope at the diverse fauna of our own saliva, we can step
out of our human shell, detached from our human games and "worldly" desires for
a moment, feeling a sense of reverence, awe, and oneness in the presence of such
diverse forms of life. Anecdote shows this; research proves it: people
experiencing greater biodiversity are happier, are better able to overcome
life's vicissitudes.

Wilson's common ground is thus not built solely on the unifying element of
respect for and stewardship of the natural environment. There is also the
commonality, at least in their morally highest representations, of religion and
science both working to improve the livelihoods and the satisfaction of living
beings, both working to ease our suffering and uplift our joy. Yes, much of
"religion" is about the ease of suffering via a satisfying after-life, but every
world religion also contains the strong call to compassion and charity in the
here-and-know.

Science, as reviewed by Wilson, increasingly is showing a link between
achievement of these aims and human exposure to diverse elements and forms of
life. Thus if we wish to improve the common weal, we must preserve the
biodiversity remaining on Earth, and even work to reverse the destruction we
have already caused. And the time is now – we cannot afford to wait while we
solve one or many of the Earth's and humanity's  many challenges. This too
Wilson makes abundantly clear. We are on the edge of a precipice, and it will
take our combined efforts to push us back into stability.

This is one of the most profound secular works I have ever read, and I cannot
recommend it more highly. Some critics have labeled it condescending; I saw it
as frank and straight-forward. If you have the means, please read The
Creation, and then find ways to strengthen your commitment to the
well-being of your fellow creatures on this God-given Earth.