I am fascinated and a little puzzled at the connection that apparently exists today in certain segments of society between evolution and global warming. More particularly, at the connection between denial of evolution and denial of global warming. I don't think the two are necessarily connected. I don't suppose you could think the world was created yesterday and believe in global warming (meaning human-made global warming), but you could surely believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago and believe in global warming. Conversely, you could think that the earth is very old and that evolution occurred and deny global warming.
But the front runners for the Republican nomination for next year's presidential race link the two. No evolution. No global warming. And my question is: Why? Or, more specifically, are the denials connected? I very much suspect that they are and that the link is evangelical Christianity -- the kind that entails an idiosyncratic, supposedly literal reading of Genesis.
People think that Genesis implies no evolution and that Genesis also implies no global warming. My question is whether the link is common cause or cause and effect. Do people find in Genesis independent evidence against evolution and against global warming, or is it a matter of finding evidence for the one that -- even if the link is not logically necessary -- strongly suggests the truth of the other?
I take it that the independence case would be something like: Take the six-day story of creation, throw in Noah's Flood and you simply cannot believe in evolution. Since Genesis is true, evolution must be false. Now take the stuff about God giving us dominion over the animals and all of the earth, and perhaps throw in the promises to Abraham, and if you want to go to Exodus, the bit about milk and honey, and global warming must be false. God is simply not going to let His creation come to a burning end, or at least not through our actions. If He decides to do it, that is up to Him.
I take it that the cause and effect argument would be something like this: Modern science insists on the truth of evolution. But we know that evolution is false. Hence we should not accept modern science, at least not at face value. Why then should we accept warnings about global warming? In both cases we are getting predictions (or retrodictions) about times other than the present. If science is so unreliable about the past, why should we take it seriously about the future? The Bible is the guide to the past. The Bible is also a guide to the future. Leave it at that.
It seems to me that either link is plausible, not in the sense that either is true (I believe in evolution and in global warming), but in the sense that people might be reasoning in either way. I don't think it a priori obvious that being an evangelical Christian literalist means that one option is to be preferred over the other. But I would be interested to know if one option is preferred over the other, if this is generally so and why.
Global warming: Climate change and evolution | The Economist
Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change denial becomes harder to justify - The Washington ...
How biblical literalism took root | Stephen Tomkins | Comment is free ...
No different than AGW deniers.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/rick-perry-and-galileo-the-religious-beliefs-behind-global-warming-skepticism/
Quote:
"If you have a biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview that sees the earth and its climate system as being designed by an omnipotent God... and sustained by a faithful God who has covenanted to sustain it, then your inclination is to see the climate system as robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting."
In other words, their particular theology has boxed them in such that if mainstream climate science is true, then the God - or at least the type of God - they believe in may even not exist.
And so we may have at least a partial explanation for why even some who have training in climate science like Roy Spencer commit all those many logical fallacies I in my post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/angryangel/denying-evolution-and-global-warming_b_946473_106407194.html
alluded to.
It cannot be denied that almost all research monies go to organizations with an interest in proving human-made global warming. Instead the scientific method requires you look at the data first and only then come to a conclusion. In this politically charged climate, I think you would agree that being a little more skeptical on this issue might be prudent.
As to what constructive purpose the author intended when he wrote article is lost on me. This article seemed more of an unwarranted attack on two groups in our society that don't deserve it.
Especially when both sides call science into question. "If they can be wrong about A, why can't they be wrong about B?"
'However Enlil-Jehovah was not so enchanted.He could see that the earthling numbers were getting out of hand.Longevity was prevalent,illness was rare and death only came by killing. He called a meeting of the twelve Nephilim elders to discuss the crisis and to deal with the ever-increasing number of earthlings.'Destiny was to take a major hand in this decision,as from all reports major climatic changes were evident. The Nephilim meteorologists had predicted widespread famine and drought and famine due to global warming,caused by the planetary crossing of their home planet.He instructed,and the elders agreed,that no assistance would be given to the earthlings and this method of culling would do the trick.'For years famine prevailed upon the earth.The results were devastating; the stench of death was horrific.All looked to be lost for the earthling race had resorted to cannibalism after all the other creatures had been devoured.(Mark Henderson,Primeval Human was a Cannibal', The Australian,6 December 2006)
I wonder how great intellectual philosophers like C.S.Lewis and Derek Prince made the step from 'reason' to 'faith and reason'. It is clear that the Christian community includes great philosophers such as these two, as well as an impressive number of highly revered pioneering scientists, such as Pasteur. So, for some to dismiss Christians as superstitious etc. is a bit rich.
There are strong arguments against global warming being 'anthropogenic', the sea levels don't seem to be rising at such an alarming rate, and there are huge gaps in the evidence used to pinpoint the origins of life, so I will continue to scrutinise the work of mainstream science, as the bible commands us 'to test everything' (whether from mainstream science, philosophy, politicians, priests or 'creation science').
As for evolution do you actually have any gaps in that theory? The only gap you mentioned is the origin of life. Since evolution doesn't purport to explain the origin of life, maybe you could name some gaps in evolution.
Gaps in the evolutionary tree! Is that a joke? There is far too little fossil evidence to reach any conclusion with certainty. No problem with 'natural selection' but that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to man coming from Congo chimpanzees and life beginning in the sea. At least we appear to agree that the beginnings of life are conjectural, from a scientific perspective.
And when that judgment develops, who will say this is because of global warming? The theory of evolution and global warming are similar in that both will be used to cancel out a Creator and the Word of Yahweh which tells of an impending judgment, where it says, people will be destroyed with the earth (natural events). I'm not saying there isn't legitimacy in the claim that the earth is warming up due to pollution, but I also recognize that nature works in cycles. And I recognize that Judgment is unavoidable.
A few decades ago, the snow in Pennsylvania was so heavy that one could walk over the fence on the snow. Other years, conditions were very dry, leading to dust bowls, like that of the dirty thirties.
Nature works in cycles. As Solomon said "All things are full of weariness". When conditions become worse, transport will be effected and pollution should therefore be reduced. People will HAVE to become self-reliant and not depend on transport to get them to places. But global warming is, like the theory of evolution, being supported because money can be made from it.
Global warming and the theory of evolution is helping to stupefy people, like using food grown in our country (while people are starving) for consumption in a vehicle.
Science denier rhetoric is stupefying; science denier irony is eternal.
Sorry, you are.
As anyone who has a functional understanding of the science knows, this absurd statement of yours is science denial:
ThomasTrom: "global warming is, like the theory of evolution, being supported because money can be made from it."
So sorry if you are too blinded by fundamentalist religious and/or fundamentalist economic ideology to see that.
Do you believe, as does the Christian fundamentalist organization the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, that the Bible tells us and thus it is true that God does and will continue to protect us from man-made global warming?
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf
Moreover humans currently emit ~100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
You have been deeply mislead by your "information" sources, darkside - you are wildly incorrect
Again, humans currently emit ~100 times more CO2 than volcanoes - actually more than that even.
But hey, don't take my word for it:
-----------------------------------------------------
EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Volume 92, June 2011
Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities…
In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio…
The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton-per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
I believe the distrust of science is exploited by corporate lobbyists, politicians and pundits to raise questions about global warming. These lobbyists, etc have a vested interest in preserving their companies current use and abuse of the environment and thus cascade the idea that global warming is not true to an audience who is all too willing to distrust science.
Logic and facts slowly but surely defeat the massed forces of ignorance and idolatry.
Those small areas currently left to religion are the last they hold and will be defended with great ferocity, despite their certain knowledge that science will prevail.
Religious zealots will attribute all manner of evil intent and despicable actions to those that threaten them - with those intents and actions actually being common practice within their own franchises.
Religion itself is a constantly changing invention of mankind, with the major monotheistic cults only coming to market a few thousand years ago.
Being relegated to the gaps in our ever-increasing knowledge is a sad state of affairs, but cornered animals can be very dangerous.
Unless we can all be guided back into a new dark-ages and education can be abolished in favor of dogmatic training (see recent Bachmann speech), religion as a functional part of our world may only have a few generations left.
Intellectuals who place far to much "energy" into religious dogma are not, in fact, intellectual.
Learning requires the assimilation processing and rejection of information (presumably false) - absolutely correct. Religion has no "partial incongruences" and it is entirely disingenuous to portray it that way. It is based on lore and used to control peoples actions and finances. If anyone opened their mind enough to understand the history and evolution of the invention of religion, it would clearly become rejectable by your learning premise. Just as we all eventually shake off the fantasy of the Easter Bunny.
The universe is full of shades of gray - that is what makes the drive discovery and the thirst for actual knowledge so wonderful and fulfilling. Pretending religion has a functional role in that process is false at its base to the point of being oxymoronic.
I get what you are saying here but this sentiment says so much about religionists if they are willing to deny science or distance themselves from scientists simply because science hasn’t found scientific evidence to support religion. It's complete absurdity! I’ll agree with you if you agree with me first? Science doesn’t work that way. Religionists can disbelieve in gravity, killer whales or oxygen for all I care, that still doesn’t make their miracle stories true or believable it doesn’t prove deities exist and it doesn’t make them anything but childish and ignorant.
I'm not necessarily saying, "Let's all drive a wedge between the two" but if that is their attitude, then that's their problem.
Theists seem to think that the sole purpose of science is to discredit the Bible. This is not so. Science was born of mankind's natural curiosity about his world. Through careful study and the examination of the evidence they found, many findings dispelled the antiquated beliefs of those that wrote the Bible and tried to explain their world with the supernatural. This infuriates the religious among us because it chips away at their core belief system, forcing them to go through convoluted and ridiculous explanations as to how science actually supports their beliefs. But the Bible is so disjointed and unreliable that the religious actually are able to plug scientific findings into the gaps and convince some people that they are right.
After all, just look at the fires in Texas.
God hates Texas.
He even steered the rains from a tropical storm away from Texas, just to keep the fires going.
He's just teaching us a lesson by burning down the homes of so many Christians???