Scientists and Evangelicals Join Forces to Protect the Creation

In mid 2005, the two of us met and became close friends, and we soon began talking about the high levels of enmity and distrust that existed between many scientists and Evangelicals. We saw this historic schism as increasingly dangerous in today's world, because, despite having differences on some well-known issues, our two communities clearly shared a deep and fundamental reverence for life on Earth and a profound concern about what human activity was doing to it, and together, had an enormously powerful role to play in helping to reduce the threat from escalating changes to the global environment. And yet scientists and Evangelicals were hardly speaking to one another.

The two of us decided that our respective organizations would convene a meeting of prominent scientists and Evangelicals, and last December, 30 of us met. The group reviewed the science, about which there was no disagreement--that the natural world (which everyone agreed to call the Creation) was imperiled by human behavior, especially by our unsustainable burning of fossil fuels and our degradation of living systems, and that human beings were particularly at risk, with the poorest among us, those least able to defend themselves, being the most vulnerable. It became clear to us that there was no such thing as a liberal or conservative environment, or a secular or religious environment. We all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and rely on the same organisms we share this planet with for our health and our lives. And it soon became obvious that whether one believed God created life on Earth in an instant, or that it had evolved over 3.5 billion years, we all felt deeply that it was sacred and that it was our responsibility to protect it.

A smaller group of us--10 leading scientists and Evangelicals--accompanied by a NOW film crew, has recently returned from Alaska, where some of the Earth's most dramatic and easily seen changes caused by global warming are occurring. Glaciers are melting rapidly, contributing to sea level rise; sea ice and permafrost are fast disappearing, threatening many species like polar bears with extinction and exposing some Native Inupiat coastal communities to massive erosion and great human suffering; streams and rivers are becoming too warm for salmon to spawn; and million of acres of spruce trees have been dying, infested by bark beetles whose populations have exploded secondary to the warming.

We left changed people, more convinced than ever that scientists and Evangelicals had to speak with one voice and do everything in their power to save this indescribably beautiful and precious gift we have all been given.

What We Learned from Each Other

From Dr. Eric Chivian:
What I have learned from Richard is that our similarities are so much deeper and more important than any differences we might have, and that our great friendship and respect for one another has made everything possible. Richard, as a young man, planted and tended an orchard, and I now manage one that grows heirloom fruit. A central part of our bond with each other is that we share a deep love for the natural world. We also share a core belief that guides our lives. From my tradition, it is embodied in the words of Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, who counseled us in their Einstein-Russell Manifesto, which dealt with preventing the use of nuclear weapons, "Remember your humanity, forget the rest." From Richard's, it is the great wisdom of the Bible--"Love thy neighbor as thyself." We are all neighbors on this small planet, and we must put aside whatever divides us to address together the global environmental and human health crises we face. That is the only way we will be successful.

From Rev. Richard Cizik:
What I've learned from Eric is what every Evangelical would learn from an honest, get-to-know-each-other dialogue with scientists: a new understanding of stewardship. How so? As a biblical Christian, I've always looked forward to seeing a "new heaven and a new earth." In so doing, that "vision" never included being a protector or steward of this earth. Seeing the real threats to this earth, Creation, has given me a different frame of reference. That new frame of reference is to see life from God's perspective. (After all, His frame of reference is much more expansive than my own; God loves the whole Creation, and wants us to do the same.) On our expedition to Alaska, for example, we could actually see the melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, the destruction of habitat, and other variables that are altering human life on earth. For these, as well as other impacts, there is, right now, overwhelming empirical evidence. And, tragically, we humans are causing it. This new vision has changed me, profoundly. I now can "see" what God intended all along. In my judgment, there's no way to warrant a commendation as "thou good and faithful servant" without such stewardship. Ironic, isn't it, that it took a scientist and his colleagues to open my eyes? As the Scriptures say, God works in marvelous and wondrous ways.

Originally posted here.

Comments

[SolarPowerGuy]

"And it soon became obvious that whether one believed God created life on Earth in an instant, or that it had evolved over 3.5 billion years..."

In the case of finding common cause to protect Earth, how scientists and Christians differ on the ORIGINS of life is not very important. More critical is how scientists and Christians differ on life's DESTINY -- their eschatology.

Scientists say that life and the Universe have been around for eons, and are likely to be around for eons longer. If humans don't screw up, we can participate in an extended future.

Many Christians, particularly U.S. Evangelicals, believe that THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH. While religion is often prey to apocalyptic thinking, this particular round stems from specific, controversial interpretations of the Book of Revelations. Major Church leaders such as Luther and Calvin had trouble accepting Revelations. Theologians over the centuries have recommended discarding it.

If you think that Earth has no future, what do you care what happens to it? Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, once said: "When the last tree is cut down, Christ will come."

Rev. Cizik writes: "As a biblical Christian, [my] 'vision' never included being a protector or steward of this earth."

A USA Today poll conducted last December found that one in four Americans believed that the Second Coming of Jesus would take place THIS YEAR!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-31-new-year-predictions_x.htm

This thinking MUST change. I ask all of you who believe in the Second Coming -- can you be so sure WHEN this will happen? Do you think your great-grandkids just might possibly need a planet to live on? Do you want to be responsible for starving them?

Rev. Cizik, I'm glad that you will join the cause of keeping humanity's home in good repair. PLEASE spread this thinking in your community. Put the Apocalypse Now radicalism to bed, once and for all.

[darker]

Sorry folks, but THE CREATION does not need protecting.

It's The Created-- we--middle Americans-- who need protection.

Our rotten shitty Bush-Cheney & Corrupt Corporate Welfare Queens are protecting their NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH.

[rayanthony]

It's interesting to see scientist and Evangelicals can both be sucked into the global warming scam. Sure is nice to see people working together.

[RabidRightRebel]

The fact that these evangelists acknowledge that the planet earth is not disposable is step in the right direction. Perhaps the next step could be getting them to acknowledge that the sun which the earth revolves arround is only one of billions of known suns in the universe. ie: there are more stars than there are grains of sands on all the beaches of the earth.

[MagisterLudi]

Working together to solve an issue, any issue is a step in the right direction.
Religions are mainly involved in behavior modification (morality) by proxy:" This is not my opinion, I am merely interpreting God's divine law."
As long as religious leaders confine themselves to that role they can play a positive role in a society.
Scientists, who function without constraints of morality and ethics (humanistic or religious) could be very dangerous people.
The famous Teller/ Oppenheimer feud is a great example. Joseph Mengale, Soviet psychiatric hospitals for political prisoners, current "leaders" of Env. Protection Agency, Cheney's rejection of Kyoto protocol etc.

The whole destruction of the Earth is an issue of morality, scientific understanding and just plain self-survival.

We all can unite around this.

Some chose to work from the point of view of compassion for the Earth and its life and attempt to transcend their differences in the name of this noble cause.

Others chose to wallow in their own anger and narrow-mindedness, intellectually incapable to transcend their own primitivism. HELLO,POSTERS!

Every person must make the choice based on their own level of enlightenment...or lack thereof.

[Crowhaul]

What were you thinking? Scientists meeting with people who base their lives on fairy tales? Why waste their time?

Let the scientists get back to their real work; let the evangelicals get back to their make-believe and playing their sophist word games (calling the natural world 'creation'? give me a break...)

[AristophanesJones]

Amazing how empirical observation can effectively challenge the lurid theist fascination with eschatology.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Beyond a one-time 'man-bites-dog' story, this type of moderate, conciliatory dialogue is doomed in the media. The media makes its money on polarization, titilation, bombastic jingoism, and bad manners.

[JimReed]

It is hard to concentrate on creation while we are at war. I know conservative greed is a primary reason, but I am also concerned about the part Christian vanity plays. They seem reluctant to reject the notion that war might lead to a new heaven and earth, so at some level they seem accepting of, and perhaps even excited about war. If they could come to view things differently, the force of conservative greed would lose its base of voting support, and a world at peace would be in a position to start working on issues of the creation.

[MaxD]

My worry about this kind of thing is simple. It seems that as this relationship becomes more cozy it will limit the critique scientists might aim at these same evangelicals when they try to get their silly desert mythologies into science class rooms. Well I don't want to make so and so angry because their group has become an important ally, or contributor or whatever. I'm no republican but you can see how horribly polluted their party has become by courting this constituency.
The evangelical mind really can't harbor a "by all means you study your godless evolutionary science, and I will pursue my escatological dreams and let all the disagreements between be so much water under the bridge." Every knee must bow. Barring that, it is at least demanded that we respect their ludicrous faith positions.

[SmallvilleSC]

Whenever good Science tries to mend fences with religion then it loses its credibility and becomes poor Science.
Whenever religion tries to mend fences with Science then it becomes enlightened and is no longer a belief system.

As Sgt. Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am."

[Soulsurfer]

In a perfect world, science and religion would compliment and re-enforce each other, but in our world that ain't the case. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition, supporting itself with hucksterism. At least this is a step in the right direction, albeit an extremely small one.

[Boobaloo]

Im wondering if scientists and evangelicals can get together and convince the christofacists to stop arming Israel to conduct a genocide in the Middle East and to convince the Rapture obsessed wackos that God doesn't want them to kill us all for Jebus?

I think both of your time would be better spent in that arena.

Americas Zionist Evangelicals are the single greatest threat to life on the planet today -- if these religious nutjobs get what they want there will be no earth to protect.

[Purple Girl]

Ya got an Atheist saying " AMEN !!!"
Keep it simple stupids- We are responsible fro everything ( not just oil control & profit margins)By God or Nature we have been given this wonderful gift, in return we are to care for it an dpas it on.Period. If we can not live in our envirnoment the money & power mean nothing-so give it up now.
WE all get it- it is the man made institutions that have ignored it. Mere brick & mortar, created by us to assist us, not enslave or kill us.This is a sin against both God & nature.
Where we came from is irrelevant. Where we are going is THEE question.

[AIPAC]

Merlin seven, your right, scientists shouldn't associate with the religious. Everybody knows that problems can only be solved by splitting in to rigidly seperate ideologies. We can only solve global warming by excluding the billions of religious people from the campaign.