Climate change denial vs. evolution denial

[Strathos]

Being someone who accepts the reality of both anthropogenic climate change and biological evolution, I nonetheless have to say that the denial of the former is a much bigger problem than the denial of the latter.

This is for two main reasons:

1. Creationism is understandable, AGW denial really isn't

Even though I don't subscribe to their viewpoints, it's easy to tell why creationists believe what they believe, based on their interpretation of Genesis. In other words, I can understand where creationists are coming from.

But there's nothing in the Bible that says we should be able to wreck the planet (the one that God gave us) to our heart's content. At least, there are no passages that can be interpreted to say that without a lot of twisting. In fact, there are passages that say the exact opposite:

And the nations were angry, and your wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward unto your servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear your name, small and great; and should destroy them who destroy the earth.

There's also nothing in the Bible that says we can't possibly ruin the environment, or that it can't possibly be happening. The main reason so many Christians deny AGW is because, over the past several decades in America, Christianity has unfortunately been hijacked by the political right, and Christians have been led to support all of their views, even if they are contradictory to the teachings of the Bible. The political right obviously has a lot invested in denying climate change, as a huge amount of their money comes from fossil fuel companies. They don't care if our water is poisoned, or if shore settlements are washed away, as long as it doesn't cut into their profit margin.

2. AGW denial has more immediate and harsher consequences

If you deny the ToE and deep time, you might not make a very good geologist or biologist, but there are many other jobs you can do just fine. And not accepting the scientific consensus when it comes to evolution doesn't actively hurt anyone, at least not nearly as much as rejecting climate change.

Climate change is a pressing problem that we are feeling the effects of today. If we don't work together and act quickly to minimize the damage, our children and our children's children will have significantly worse lives. Voting for politicians who are against environmental regulations, climate research, and international agreements to limit CO2 emissions is a surefire road to more disease, more property damage, and more death.

Also, please answer the poll as a sort of survey.

 

[Strathos]

EDIT: NVM

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Changing our behavior to effectively mitigate our contribution to climate change would wreak havoc on us economically and socially. All we can do is continue to study it, talk about it, and of course wring our hands over it.

 

[ananda]

@Strathos, how have you voluntarily modified your lifestyle to incorporate your beliefs in climate change?

 

[juvenissun]

1. Creationism is understandable, AGW denial really isn't

2. AGW denial has more immediate and harsher consequences

Both need faith.
Creation has God's word.
AGW only has man's word.

Which one would give you more faith?

 

[juvenissun]

Changing our behavior to effectively mitigate our contribution to climate change would wreak havoc on us economically and socially. All we can do is continue to study it, talk about it, and of course wring our hands over it.

I like your new avatar.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like your new avatar.

Thanks. Here's the story behind it.

Mine is inspired by a true story written by an African hunting guide that appeared in Reader's Digest many years ago.

"A wealthy American businessman chartered a hunting expedition, which included explicit instructions for his breakfast meals......cornflakes. The guide forgot to bring the cornflakes and presented his client with a sumptuous breakfast of bacon and eggs the first morning out. Without a word the client sat back, folded his arms, and grimly stared off at the morning horizon. After a few moments of confusion and indecision the guide resignedly got into his Land Rover and drove the two hours back to Nairobi, purchased the cornflakes, and returned to camp to find his client in the same chair as he left him. Upon serving the cornflakes the client's face brightened and the hunt proceeded without a further mention of the incident.
As a my-way-or-the-highway guy I was inspired by this story. I'm still waiting for the world to do things my way."

 

[Strathos]

Both need faith.
Creation has God's word.
AGW only has man's word.

Which one would give you more faith?

Do you have faith in atomic theory, germ theory, or relativity theory?

 

[Ophiolite]

Both need faith.
Creation has God's word.
AGW only has man's word.

Which one would give you more faith?

Man. There seems to be substantial disagreement among the gods.

 

[Skreeper]

Both need faith.
Creation has God's word.
AGW only has man's word.

Which one would give you more faith?

Maybe you could give us your definition of "faith"?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have faith in atomic theory, germ theory, or relativity theory?

Not really.
Among the three, I only know the theory of relativity. I don't care about it in my actual life. So faith does not apply.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe you could give us your definition of "faith"?

faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Does it apply to both Creationism and evolution?

 

[Skreeper]

faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Does it apply to both Creationism and evolution?

Then we work with a different understanding of faith.

I define faith as belief absent of evidence, and that's usually how theists use the word when it comes up as a concept.

Basically faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Not really.
Among the three, I only know the theory of relativity. I don't care about it in my actual life. So faith does not apply.

Do you or have you ever used a GPS? Time dilation has to be accounted for in order for the GPS to be accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't harp to me about anthropogenic climate change if you:

1. drive a gas-powered car
2. have a cement patio
3. have glass windows
4. have a barbecue grill
5. have a fireplace
6. drink pop
7. use a CO2 extinguisher

You guys who harp on us about using a computer to deny science: walk your own talk.

 

[PloverWing]

@Strathos, how have you voluntarily modified your lifestyle to incorporate your beliefs in climate change?

I can't speak for Strathos, but I'll speak for myself. Some of my actions arise also out of my beliefs that we need clean air, that we have too many landfills, and that petroleum is a finite resource that I expect us to exhaust in my lifetime. There is a lot of overlap in the actions that address these different concerns.

My family bought a house near where I work, so that our commute would be short and not use much gas. I walk or bike to work when I can. I reuse and recycle as much as possible. I try to avoid buying products with lots of extra packaging that is going to be thrown away, though this one is very hard in the modern US. I use reusable grocery bags instead of the plastic ones you discard after one use. A relatively new one for me is that I try to buy locally-grown food when possible, so that the food doesn't have to be driven long distances on trucks; easier in July than in January, of course. I have arranged to get my electricity from environmentally-friendly sources (wind, solar, hydro); I'm lucky that our local electric company offered this as an option.

All small steps, and much more needs to be done. But my belief that the environment is fragile and needs to be protected influences small choices I make almost every day.

 

[Abraxos]

I think the misunderstanding here is that people that "deny science" don't care about the environment. My family owns a bay where it's teeming with sea life (and yummy food!) and in the summer we get hundreds of surfies and campers who all know the rules of the land and respect it. We don't need to accept man made climate change that "clean is green." We've known it for thousands of years.

"Biological evolution" is just microevolution. A sneaky bait and switch for darwinism.

I didn't vote because it's misleading.

 

[Strathos]

Not really.
Among the three, I only know the theory of relativity. I don't care about it in my actual life. So faith does not apply.

It shouldn't, because they're not matters of faith. I've always found that claiming that faith is needed to believe in science is demeaning to the actual value and meaning of faith.

 

[juvenissun]

It shouldn't, because they're not matters of faith. I've always found that claiming that faith is needed to believe in science is demeaning to the actual value and meaning of faith.

But evolution is more than science. One needs (a strong) faith to accept that.

 

[Strathos]

But evolution is more than science. One needs (a strong) faith to accept that.

Only if you attribute more to it than it actually says.