Thanks to: Nathan Lee
I sometimes think that moderate Christians are afraid to criticise their more extreme brethren. How many, for example, will openly criticise the large minority of Christians whe oppose evolutionary science. In New Zealand I estimate that about 40% of Christians oppose evolutionary science (see New Zealand supports evolution).
similarly, I often think Christians who accept the scientific picture of global climate change seem afraid to criticise those conservative Christians who actively campaign against the science. And then there are issues such as women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights, and so on.
On these issues it often appears that conservative and extreme Christian groups will pretend to speak for Christians as a whole. And they get away with it because fellow Christians are hesitant to stand up and openly criticise them
So I was pleased to see this initiative in Australia where some Christians are coming out against the conservative and extreme Australian Christian Lobby. They have launched a petition to the Prime minister to making her aware that the Lobby does not have the support it pretends to.
The wording of the petition is:
We are Australian Christians, and we’d like you to know that the Australian Christian Lobby does not speak for us.
We believe that its endorsements and policy statements rarely represent a helpful contribution to political dialogue in Australia, and we urge you and your government to listen to a broader cross-section of the Australian Christian community.
We are much more diverse than the Australian Christian Lobby.
via Australian Christians against the ACL Petition.
Christians turn back on lobby
Australian Christian Lobby … I disown thee
Australian Christian Lobby’s prayer for prejudice in Victoria?
Posted in creationism, diversity, evolution, intelligent design, religion, science, Science and Society
Tagged Australia, Australian Christian Lobby, climate change, denial, global warming, New Zealand, SciBlogs
It’s interesting how we keep getting little snippets of ‘news’ circulating the internet that cast doubt on the scientific consensus around the likely anthropogenic contribution to climate change. They will often quote new scientific findings or statements from scientists or scientific organisations. I think we are all aware of what is going on here. We all tend to select the information which supports our arguments. Nevertheless, the apparent scientific credibility of some of these snippets can sow doubt in the minds of many of us.
I thought it would be interesting to follow up a comment made by Ross Dixon on a recent post (Climate change and New Zealand). This implied that the 46,000 members of the American Physical Society had changed their minds on the causes of climate change and had published a paper outlining this in their “journal.” The implication is that the paper had scientific credibility (implied by the peer review involved in publication by a scientific journal) and that the society had made a statement supporting the paper’s conclusions.
Well, the facts are a bit different!
More than 99% of all the species which have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. Sometimes this resulted from sudden environmental changes. For example extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have resulted from abrupt changes caused by collision of a comet with the earth. In most cases extinction was probably the result of the blind forces of Darwinian natural selection. The effects of overpopulation causing a detrimental environmental change leading the extinction.
Until now extinction may have been the inevitable fate for any species. However, human evolution has produced a species with a brain capable of planning and forethought.
Posted in belief, Christianity, faith, religion, science, superstition
Tagged climate change, Darwinian, Darwinist, denial, extinction, global warming
The issue of global climate change seems to polarise people. I was amazed how strongly some of the participants in a recent discussion expressed their views. Especially in the criticism of the current understanding of human contributions to climate change.
The willingness of some people to reject scientific findings, and even to slander the scientists for their discoveries, concerns me. However, I will return to this subject in a later post.
For now I just want to raise the necessity of proper assessment of evidence when confronted with this sort of discussion.