More Vs. Better

by Bill McKibben

We are gradually undoing the stability that God built into our climate system. Molecule by molecule, we are adding harmful carbon dioxide to our atmosphere at rates that we cannot sustain. Twenty years ago Bill McKibben was among the first to inform the general public about climate change. Today, he believes that this is an issue where science and faith come together. Listen as he sounds the alarm and offers a path forward.

Comments

Wes Widner

"We are gradually undoing the stability that God built into our climate system."

If this is true, then what we are saying is that 1. God is a poor designer and 2. that God lied about the durability of the earth, a promise given from Genesis to Revelation.

And the supposed scientific evidence cited is not nearly as solid or "settled" as Bill wants to assert. Science is simply not done by consensus. There are still large gaps in and questions about the data.

The argument from the OT is based on a patently false assumption that mankind is merely a virus or scourge on the environmental. Merely using the environmental for our ends does not constitute raping the environment. It seems like Bill's hermaneutic is based on his narrow pursuit of saving mother nature.

Similarly Bill's argument form the NT appears to amount to nothing more than equating the gospel with man-made global warming hysteria and then co-opting the good Samaritan parable to somehow prop up this new Franken-gospel.

If we want to talk about injustice, we need to expose Bill's solution what it really is. Its the forcing everyone to worship this new environmental religion.

Sorry, but reality here is that the notion that men are able to and indeed are (in a causal sense) destroying the world that God made is still an unsubstantiated myth.

Nate A

In response to Mr. Widner:

God is neither a poor designer or a liar. The durability of the earth is not in question here. The Earth, as designed by God, is perfectly capable of self regulation. The problem that I see with your argument against Mr. McKibben is one of system boundaries. The environmental argument is really a human centered one, rather than a planet centered one. Can we survive as a species, can some recognizable nature be preserved as the earth seeks equilibrium? The earth will self regulate, against all human intervention, even if it has to regulate us right out of existence. If humanity, with its callous disregard of the "limits" of nature does not recognize this fact, we could, at some point in the future, be looking at the extinction of not only the species and places of the planet that we hold dear, but that of our own species as well.

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verify Code:
	Please keep me informed with the latest updates from Q

ALSO IN SCIENCE + TECH

More Vs. Better

Comments

Leave a Comment