Evangelicals and scientists working to stop global warming

[Chiaroscuro]

Evangelicals, scientists join forces to combat global warming

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Some leading scientists and evangelical Christian leaders have agreed to put aside their fierce differences over the origin of life and work together to fight global warming.

Representatives met recently in Georgia and agreed on the need for urgent action. Details on the talks will be disclosed in Washington on Wednesday.

"Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today," said Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.

Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, agreed, saying: "Scientists and evangelicals have discovered that we share a deeply felt common concern and sense of urgency about threats to life on Earth and that we must speak with one voice to protect it."

Chivian and Cizik, both of whom participated in the talks, declined further comment.

In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming, saying that human-induced climate change is real, that its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and that Christian moral convictions demand an urgent response.

They argued that governments, businesses, churches and individuals all have a role to play. Signatories included presidents of evangelical colleges, aid groups, churches and pastors of megachurches.

The powerful National Association of Evangelicals, however, did not join the initiative. It is unclear whether Cizik's involvement in the new campaign will lead the organization to adopt the environment as a central part of its agenda.

Evangelicals and scientists previously failed to launch a large-scale joint initiative, partly because of differences between evolutionary science and a literal interpretation of the Bible -- a rift that dates back to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Those who met in Georgia, however, are expected to argue that the threat to life on Earth is too great to let the rift prevent them from working together to combat greenhouse emissions.

Speakers at the Wednesday announcement will include megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, who refused to take the leadership of Christian Coalition of America because the organization would not let him expand its agenda to include the environment and poverty.

Others are Harvard biologist and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Edward O. Wilson and NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after a 2005 lecture in which he called for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.

"The evangelicals have a lot of clout on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and their voice would be a very welcome one," said Jim Presswood of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

I got this from CNN News, so it's hard to say how widespread this agreement really is, but it seems like a good sign. And I am glad that they can distinguish between evangelicals and scientists. The fact that the Christian Coalition of America apparently doesn't have poverty "on its agenda" seems a little weird to me.

[Superman]

I dunno... this doesn't fit with the typical screwball fundie. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

[Darth Servo]

I dunno... this doesn't fit with the typical screwball fundie. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

"86 evangelical leaders" doesn't constitute hard numbers?

Anyway, hopefully this will last beyond the scientists proposing an explanation/solution that doesn't include God.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I dunno... this doesn't fit with the typical screwball fundie. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

"Religious leaders working towards a good goal? But... But... Religious people are evil and crazy and evil forever and ever!"

This is indeed A Good Sign. Since Bush has actually managed to make vast swathes of the Religious Right start hating him for what they see as a betrayal, this could be the harbinger of a shift back to the time only 20 years ago, or less, when evangelicals were firm Democrat supporters. At the very least, Fundies are no longer a united Republican Bloq. Bush is a great Divider.

[Chiaroscuro]

Bush is a great Divider.

That's for sure. I hope we can get another president in there before he completely alienates all of our former allies.
By the way, not to suck up or anything, but it's really cool that you're an uber-amoeba.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Well, I'm glad to see any split in the evangelical world, though it does offer more opportunities for confusion and no-true-Scotsman accusations from the various factions. In the long run, though, any validation of science that is based on explicitly a-Christian theoretical principles is a weakening of the church, so some will have to take a hard line stance on that. But hopefully they will be crushed by reason and sense at least causing a drift in the right direction for the majority. I hope, though, that it doesnt' give them any political advantage to usurp any more scientific authority than they alread have in the public's eye here.

[Superman]

"Religious leaders working towards a good goal? But... But... Religious people are evil and crazy and evil forever and ever!"

Can you give a good reason not to think that? A lot of people want to give Charles Mason the benefit of the doubt and let him out of prison too...

[Darth Servo]

"Religious leaders working towards a good goal? But... But... Religious people are evil and crazy and evil forever and ever!"

Not "religious people". Evangelical fundamentalist morons. Nice strawman though.

[Superman]

"Religious leaders working towards a good goal? But... But... Religious people are evil and crazy and evil forever and ever!"

Not "religious people". Evangelical fundamentalist morons. Nice strawman though.

You know, is it really too much to ask that people use a little common sense and realize that people really just do the same shit repeatedly? If my friend was an asshole for the five years that I've known him, then that kind of makes him an asshole. In fact, it's pretty safe to CALL him an asshole. He's been an asshole this whole time; he's an asshole!

"But you can't call him that! Stop picking on him!"

HE'S AN ASSHOLE! Take a look at the asshole religious fundies... "Don't call them crazy! Don't call them evil!" Why the fuck not? That's exactly what the hell they are. They have a long way to go if they plan on proving themselves to the rest of the world.

[Darth Servo]

You know, is it really too much to ask that people use a little common sense and realize that people really just do the same shit repeatedly? If my friend was an asshole for the five years that I've known him, then that kind of makes him an asshole. In fact, it's pretty safe to CALL him an asshole. He's been an asshole this whole time; he's an asshole!

"But you can't call him that! Stop picking on him!"

HE'S AN ASSHOLE! Take a look at the asshole religious fundies... "Don't call them crazy! Don't call them evil!" Why the fuck not? That's exactly what the hell they are. They have a long way to go if they plan on proving themselves to the rest of the world.

That argument works for individuals. Not entire groups.

[Darth Wong]

You know, is it really too much to ask that people use a little common sense and realize that people really just do the same shit repeatedly? If my friend was an asshole for the five years that I've known him, then that kind of makes him an asshole. In fact, it's pretty safe to CALL him an asshole. He's been an asshole this whole time; he's an asshole!

"But you can't call him that! Stop picking on him!"

HE'S AN ASSHOLE! Take a look at the asshole religious fundies... "Don't call them crazy! Don't call them evil!" Why the fuck not? That's exactly what the hell they are. They have a long way to go if they plan on proving themselves to the rest of the world.

That argument works for individuals. Not entire groups.

Bullshit. When the group is defined by an ideology, then you CAN make generalizations about their attitudes.

[Superman]

That argument works for individuals. Not entire groups.

I think that's debatable. People (adults) join specific groups because it represents what they are. Either that or they were brainwashed from it at a young age...

[Darth Servo]

Bullshit. When the group is defined by an ideology, then you CAN make generalizations about their attitudes.

Point taken. Conceeded.

[Magus]

My first thought reading this was how much it sounded like something out of The Onion