Thursday, September 08, 2005

Christianity Today is a politically correct proponent of junk science

Evidently, James Dobson and his minions at Focus on the Family are not only experts on the subjects of parenting, discipline, the judiciary, discipline, the spirituality of presidents and congressmen, psychology, marriage, the gay agenda, gay brains, all matters of theology and all matters of worldview and morality. Now they are experts on the subjects of the environment, global warming and its science.

Evidently, my friend Andy Crouch (one of the 3 smartest people I know- besides his wife, who knows a bit more about science than James Dobson) is a proponent of "junk science" through his article for Christianity Today entitled Environmental Wager. Focus knows for a fact that there is no such thing as global warming. It is junk science that is unproven and the subject of much serious debate. Even the National Association of Evangelicals have bought into this politically correct lie and its connection to evolution and a "liberal social agenda." At least according to these "experts."

Read the article here. Here is some of that biased, liberal, pc evidence of global warming that a little good rhetoric will disprove, since reputable scientists are unable to do anything else but attack agenda. Click here.

*this is a dangerous worldview, to so thoroughly believe something that you find "evidence" to prove your agenda and worldview, as opposed to looking to those who may be smarter than you and listening to them. I do not consider this a Biblical worldview, but an ostrich worldview.


Bob Robinson said...

Is it any wonder, then, that so many do not believe our claims of Christ and the biblical worldview! When we cannot be intellectually honest about things like global warming, it does not bode well.

They ask, "How far down into the sand do these ostriches have their heads?"

Thanks to the link to Union of Concerned Scientists. I added it to the comments of my post about global warming and darwinism .

Eric said...

But how can we truly evaluate the claims when there are other data pointing to the reality of non-human global warming, along with a long-term trend of heating and cooling on the planets. It does not have to be sticking one's head in the sand simply because one looks at some conflicting data that does not assimilate neatly into the prevailing socio-sci-political theory of global warming and concludes the theory is not correct.

DJ Word said...

Eric, how postmodern of you.

How do we ever know who to believe. Doesn't everyone have an agenda of some sort.

Like you, I have looked at data from both sides. I find much more power and consistency on the global warming side.

I have chosen to look at evidence that makes sense in light of my experience and those I respect. I know the writer of this article and have spoken and length to his wife, a Harvard trained physicist (phd) about the subject. She is one of the smartest people I know and has shown me her study on the subject.

I do not feel she is buying into some prevailing theory, but studying it herself, without an agenda against such a subject.

From a biblical standpoint, it is my (yes, reformed) view that the sinful actions of sinful creatures will have a detrimental effect on a creation that has been groaning and imperfect since sin entered this world.

I would say that global warming is lower on my list than many other environmental concerns and I feel strongly that as a steward of this world, I need to treat it with the utmost care and respect through my actions. If I see I am doing much harm (or even potentially doing such harm) I must change my actions.

Since I am not a premillenial dispensationalist, I want to do my part to make sure this place is around until God decides He wants to do something else with the earth.

I feel that dismissing any evidence on the detrimental effect of human actions on God's creation is ostrich like.

If you have examined the evidence and found we have no negative effect, I would not say you are an ostrich.

However, I might say that about your belief that WMDs were in Iraq (he he he).

Eric said...

Rick, in your consistent use of the thinking of a modernist and the hermeneutics of a modernist, you have unearthed a bit of my post-modernity. Although I claimed the name myself years ago.

I would love to be able to sit down and talk with your friend. It would be highly helpful in grasping the urgency of this matter.

As far as the "agenda" thing, it is not as much about that as it is honestly not being able to assimilate the conflicting scientific observations together into a whole. It is the same issue I faced in college dealing with the "theory" of evolution.

I assume you are an Evolutionist based on your approach for the majority opinion in the realm of science. Is that correct?

Yes, I am aware of the Fall and the consequent tension within creation (On a side note by the way, what is your view on that whole idea, based on the same standards and reasoning process you use on Global Warming? Is there a Creator?). I am also aware that we can damage the environment through our own actions. I remember setting a whole field on fire (and baking lots of field mice in the process:-( ) with merely a magnifying glass and a ball of fiery gases. It was enough evidence for me that I could influence my environment.

Back to my original comments, however, they really are a sincere question of dealing with conflicting data--not agendas (although agendas are definitely drawn around the conflicting data). Hence, my desire to sit down with a really intelligent doctor (preferably two from conflicting perspectives) and discussing this topic. Perhaps we can get that arranged somehow.

Well, I need to get back to my hole.

By the way, you are correct, I still believe the world's leading intelligence agencies (even those who had lots to gain from evidence to the contrary) were correct.