I found it really quite hard to find something for this final scientific entry. Because honestly, there is little in science that I don’t believe has some backing – and I mean the real, Research and Development grant program science, not what Hollywood has made it out as. So, what contradicts science and always seems to throw punches with accusations?
You got it: religion. In the United States particularly, Christians tussle with scientists time and again about scientific theories versus the word of God in the Bible. In the March 9, 2006 issue of Nature, there was an editorial printed that implied these Christian versus scientist quarrels may take a rest because of global warming. Titled “A Warm Welcome,” the author tells that many evangelicals are beginning to accept the existence of global warming and suggests the scientists should be thankful for this coming around, so to speak.
Well, it’s wonderful that some hardcore Christian believers are warming up to the idea of global warming, however, there is still so much that they haven’t accepted as natural law that science throughout the world has proven. For instance, evangelicals have been sited as saying gravity to be false and that “Intelligent Falling” is more accurate, as if God were pushing objects downward. But asking for a cooling of the tensions between these two groups shouldn’t be based solely upon one commonality, especially one that the evangelicals have just so recently begun to accept as a globular truth.
There are a lot of posts on our blog about global warming; as you can see, we as students are pretty serious about this. I refer readers to those posts and resources to know more scientific knowledge and background about global warming. The state of the world is our future too, but I think in order for solutions to be met, perhaps starting off on more than simply accepting the problem must come first. There are just some basic principles that are factual about the world we live in and there is only some point that humans could understand what the “greater meaning of life” that we all search for is. I’m not preaching science and I don’t want to bash religion, but there is a fine line in what we know is real…and what we simply have faith in.
Evangelicals are those who take religion to a conservative level which is often extreme to those who don’t necessarily completely believe in what they preach, and in our country that just so happens to be many Protestant Christians. Because of this exuberant level of faith in the Bible, many evangelicals feel like they are indeed the ones looked down upon, not the scientists. This editorial feels that this should be enough common ground for the two factions to unite.
With websites like http://www.faithalone.org/, it might seem pretty obvious that evangelicals believe 100 percent in their God, down to considering humans created as intelligent design and that differing (or conflicting) religions are on the attack of your own. Evangelicals believe that it is upon their duties to spread their beliefs, often making their non-believer targets feel that their own freedom of speech and religion are being jeopardized.
As fundamentalist Christians within evangelicalism, it is believed that every word of the Bible is the direct word of God, despite the numerous versions of the Bible and the fact that it has been reprinted and reissued throughout its history to almost untraceable copies. Evangelicals also believe that having faith is enough to save one’s soul on judgment day and that Jesus Christ was born from the Virgin Mary, was himself a deity whom created miracles before the people, and was resurrected.
As an organized religion, there is a complete network of communication between factions on strategies to conversion and spreading the word, defense for themselves, using politics to reshape the world in the foundations of the Bible, etc. many of which use modern technology like the Internet to connect with one another. The Christian Apologetics Journal, for example, provides textual backing for the aid to “the defense of the historic Christian Faith.”
“Every major religion has a moral mandate to take care of the Earth,” stated by an opinion columnist for the Christian Science Monitor. This is true because in many religious texts, it is one of the first or at least basic principles that man must abide by to be a good member of that particular religion. This moral obligation to take care of the Earth, our home, is the basis for evangelicals’ acceptance of global warming as a scientific fact. But, shouldn’t taking care of the Earth be a part of our coexistence as living organisms?
Consider this: parrotfish maintain the coral reefs by “cleaning” them with their grinding incisors, which the algae and chunks of coral are then digested and ground into sand, thus restoring our oceans and coral reefs. Granted, we as humans consciously have a stronger sense of purpose and/or meaning to this world because we can logically think and create complex systems (e.g. calculus); however, as beings living on this planet, shouldn’t we automatically feel a need to take care of the planet? Therefore why should a religion be entirely essential to either tell us or makes us believe that having a healthy, clean planet is the best way to survive? It should just be an accepted fact.
Most of the world has already accepted the truth of global warming. Even our own conservative White House administration has admitted that global warming is real and that we must do something about it. It seems as though evangelicals are accepting global warming because of their backing of President Bush due to his conservative demeanor and born-again Christianity. I don’t want to make assumptions, but the connection is there especially since a lot of the Bush White House’s support comes from evangelicals and other devout Christians. For us to really be able to do something about global warming, everyone must accept it as a truth.
However, despite accepting this, I think that other natural laws of science should be accepted too. The editorial in Nature points out a good thing in evangelicals realizing global warming, but that’s not enough and scientists shouldn’t be jumping for joy about it. There is more to it than that, because basing an occurrence on science versus God’s will may only hurt the process when it comes to agreeing on a solution. Praying may work if one has faith; but scientific action will show direct results.
No comments:
Post a Comment