Edwin A. Olson
Emeritus Professor of Geology
Whitworth College
Spokane, Washington 99251
Richard Wright's article, "Tearing Down the
Green," (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, June 1995) defines and
debunks a group he calls the "evangelical backlash" -- personified mainly by E.
Calvin Beisner. More than a critique, however, Wright's paper also serves as a vehicle for
communicating his overall outlook on environmental matters. In this paper, I take issue
with Wright in a number of areas. I see regulatory excess, a slighting of scientific input
for political gain, biased sources of environmental information, indoctrination
masquerading as environmental education and Christian doctrine held hostage to an
environmental agenda. Yes, there are environmental problems. But a crisis? No.
In his paper, "Tearing Down the Green: Environmental Backlash in the Evangelical
Sub-culture,"1 Richard Wright infers that there exists a "backlash
movement" (p. 80) within evangelicalism which he labels "Christian
anti-environmentalism" (p. 89). The attack of these anti-environmentalists on the
environmental movement, says Wright, is "primarily a political attack from the right
in the name of Christianity" (p. 80). In his view these anti-environmentalists
"make use of poor scientific work and discount the mainstream scientific consensus on
the environment" (p. 80). To Wright, their scientific arguments are "patently
indefensible when scrutinized carefully" (p. 90).
On what evidential grounds does Wright propose the existence of an evangelical backlash?
He says that "without any doubt the two most prominent critics of environmentalism
from within the Evangelical fold are E. Calvin Beisner and Larry Burkett" (p. 83).
Burkett's specialty is advising Christians on financial management, and so Wright has no
trouble exposing his lack of environmental expertise. Beisner, on the other hand, has done
his homework regarding both environmental controversies and relevant biblical material. In
fact, Wright acknowledges that "the presumed biblical support for [the emerging
Christian anti-environmentalism] is currently found in Beisner's work" (p. 88). So
when Wright describes the strategy of the environmental backlash as "calling into
question most of the scientific claims of the environmentalists about resources,
pollution, and population" (pp. 80-81), he really has in mind the writings of Calvin
Beisner.2 Thus, Wright's effort "to understand the environmental backlash within
evangelical Christianity" (p. 89) seems reduced to finding out what makes Beisner
tick. One wonders whether there is anything beyond a clash of two competent Christian
brothers with contrasting ideological outlooks on environmental issues. Further insight
into that clash was provided in a recent exchange between the two men in the pages of
PSCF.3
If there is doubt about the reality of Wright's "evangelical backlash" as a
movement, there is no question that he is provoked by certain secularists who furnish
ammunition for Beisner to "put a Christian spin on" (p. 83). Calling them
prominent anti-environmentalists, Wright lists Julian Simon, Herman Kahn, Fred Singer, and
Dixy Lee Ray as Beisner's "scientific" sources. Notice the quotation marks
enclosing scientific. They are the equivalent of pseudo -- not a civil way to treat
prominent people, even those with whom one differs.
Except for the first section, my critique of Wright's paper considers some of the same
facets of environmental controversy which he addresses -- political, scientific,
informational, educational, and religious. To start, however, I call for a change in how
debate is conducted.
Winning a debate is made easier if you can either saddle your opponent's position with a
label having bad connotations or adopt for your own ideas a term with winsome overtones.
For example, members of the Institute for Creation Research and the multitudes in their
sphere of influence have locked up the word creationist by their incessant use of that
term to describe believers in fiat creation, a young earth, and flood geology. In so
doing, they have pre-empted its use by Christian people who oppose their ideas yet hold to
Divine creation. The latter are left with the label evolutionist simply because they are
anti-"creationist."
The same kind of tactic is now being used in controversies over environmental issues.
While Wright did not originate the practice, he makes full use of it. To him,
environmentalists are "people with a strong interest in protecting the natural world
and encouraging greater human concern for the world" (p. 80). They act "out of a
deep love of nature and often out of sincere humanitarian concern" (p. 90). On the
other hand, anti-environmentalists "deliberately downplay and deny unmistakable
evidence that all is not right with the earth" (p. 90). This stark dichotomy is
unfair and self-serving, creating a strong temptation to win points by applying the label
anti-environmentalist without engaging the opposition's ideas.
In my experience, anti-environmentalists are not a very large group. At least, I do not
find many people who are either unconcerned about their surroundings or knowingly trash
the planet. Consequently, when I oppose some of the ideas of those who call themselves
environmentalists, I do not become thereby an anti-environmentalist. Indeed, if called
that, I would be offended. I know from firsthand experience what bad air pollution is
like, having grown up in Pittsburgh during the 1930s. I remember both the Donora tragedy
of 1948 and the earlier rejuvenation of Pittsburgh when natural gas came flowing our way
from Texas to replace soft coal in home-heating.
Thus, I place myself among a vast throng for whom environmentalist is a proper
description. We are people who like clean air, good water, and healthful food; we
appreciate a diverse biota, beautiful scenery, and the time and mobility to enjoy them. At
the same time, some of us realize that perfection is not an option, that cost-benefit
analyses are a part of the equation, and that trade-offs are sometimes necessary. We want
to be full participants in the discussions without being dismissed as
anti-environmentalist or backlash.
Wright's analysis of the political dimension of environmental concern is generally on the
mark. He could easily have merged his world view analysis with politics, labeling the
opposing viewpoints liberal and conservative. Thomas Sowell's categories of constrained
and unconstrained visions also come close to describing the opposing views which Wright
sketches out.
In bringing politics to bear on environmental issues, I differ from Wright mainly in two
ways. First, I believe he sees too sharp a boundary between the political and the
scientific. One could hope that when a full scientific analysis of an environmental
problem is completed the proper course of remediation would be obvious to all concerned.
Experience shows this is not so.
Consider the issue of a diminishing ozone layer in the stratosphere, a problem Wright
dealt with. Most likely due to CFCs diffusing into the ozone region from below, the
depressed ozone levels might result in a higher ground-level flux of UV(B) radiation and
thus a rise in skin cancer rates. In response to this possibility, an international
meeting was held in Montreal in 1987. Out of the deliberations, there came the so-called
Montreal Protocol. This agreement with subsequent actions led to the decision to stop
worldwide production of CFCs at the end of 1995 and require a switch to new refrigerants
of uncertain effectiveness and safety.
What went on at Montreal is the subject of a book by Karen T. Litfin entitled Ozone
Discourses. She described her initiation into reality as follows:
Superficially, this landmark ozone regime appears to have been the result of a rigorous
process of risk analysis and adroit diplomacy with sophisticated atmospheric models
serving as the scientific basis of the negotiations Like others, I was beguiled by a faith
in the ability of science to make politics more rational and cooperative As I interviewed
the participants and read the source documents from the international negotiating process,
however, I began to suspect that more complicated dynamics than epistemic cooperation were
involved. It became increasingly evident that "knowledge" was not deeply
implicated in questions of framing and interpretation and that these were related to
perceived interests. Although the range of uncertainty was narrow, atmospheric science did
not provide a body of objective and value-free facts from which international cooperation
emerged. Rather, knowledge was framed in light of specific interests and preexisting
discourses so that questions of value were rendered as questions of fact, with exogenous
factors shaping the political salience of various modes of interpreting that knowledge. In
particular the discourse of precautionary action, not itself mandated by atmospheric
science, moved from a subordinate to a dominant position.4
Litfin later describes the two main groups making up the U.S. delegation to the Montreal
negotiations. Of course, there were the scientists. But ultimately of greater importance
were people she calls "a group of ecologically minded knowledge brokers," mostly
employed by the EPA. It was they who were "instrumental both in translating the
available knowledge into terms understandable to decision-makers and in pushing forward
specific policy proposals. This group was more inclined than were the scientists to employ
knowledge on behalf of far-reaching policy recommendations."5 In fact, says Litfin,
almost no scientists "advocated the virtual ban on CFCs that was promoted by the U.S.
delegation."6
What happened in Montreal in relation to ozone provides us with a prototypical scenario
for handling alleged or real environmental problems once they reach the hands of political
knowledge brokers, people with a "we-must-save-the-earth" mentality. With such a
mind-set, extreme political options will always be the most favored ones. It is clear,
then, to use Litfin's words, that "while [scientific] knowledge [is] indispensable,
it [is] always open to interpretation, and it [is] never apolitical" (was changed to
is).7
My second difference with Wright has to do with the government's regulatory role in
environmental matters. Without calling for a laissez-faire approach, I believe that
regulations have gotten out of hand. John Stossel, investigative reporter for the 20/20
television program, expresses my judgment. Admitting that he has spent much of his career
exposing a problem and calling for a government agency to correct it, Stossel now says:
I'm embarrassed to admit that it took me two decades of reporting to see that governmental
action has side effects like dependency. I now realize that the government controls which
consumer reporters rave about do more harm than good and that unregulated free markets
solve problems much better than government [Lawmakers] should adopt the Stossel Rule,
which is that every time they pass a law they have to repeal two old ones making the
regulatory monster just a little bit smaller.8
As Stossel calls for less governmental regulation, vice-president Al Gore calls for more
-- much more. Wright sees Gore as a very concerned man "who speaks the language of
environmentalism [and] understands the scientific literature" (p. 82). From my
perspective, however, he comes across as frightening. Consider this passage from his book,
Earth in the Balance:
It is essential that we refuse to wait for the obvious signs of impending catastrophe,
that we begin immediately to catalyze a consensus for this new organizing principle.
Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and
strategy, every plan and course of action -- to use, in short, every means to halt the
destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. Minor
shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws
and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change -- these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle
and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.9
Of course, says Gore, "this wrenching transformation of society [will be] agreed to
voluntarily." That judgment, in my view, is a sure sign that Gore is ignorant of both
history and human nature.
The litany of environmental problems seems to grow larger almost daily. At least it does
in the minds of some who have already concluded that environmentally the world is on the
road to destruction. Unfortunately, that general conclusion is infecting more and more
people, almost certainly because of constant doom-and-gloom bombardment. If those
influenced happen to be in education or the media, the rippling effect becomes an
avalanche of opinion. What has developed as a result is a societal milieu in which
everybody knows that there's an environmental crisis. To question that generalization or
any of its component judgments is to receive looks of incredulity.
Since politicians respond more to opinion then to sober analysis, the societal costs
resulting from certain political decisions about the environment can be very significant.
Alar, asbestos, dioxin, low-frequency electric fields, certain pesticides, and radon --
all have been called serious environmental threats based on scientific arguments.
Unfortunately, all have generated unnecessary anxiety, and some have led to laws that
mandate great expenditures of money for little or no gain.
The acid rain story is an example of science put to the service of an environmental
problem and rebuffed when the findings contradicted what everyone knew to be true. Sulfur
dioxide released at coal-fired power plants and base-metal smelters has long been
recognized as a contributor to the acidity of rain. Seeking a quantitative evaluation of
the acid rain problem, Congress in the late 1970s authorized a ten-year research effort
that spanned the 1980s. Called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP),
it was ultimately to employ three thousand scientists and spend in excess of half a
billion dollars.
J. Laurence Kulp, NAPAP's research director for several years and chief editor for the
1987 interim report, summarized the NAPAP effort as follows:
At the beginning of the [NAPAP] program, acid rain was suspected to have negative effects
on surface waters, crops, forests, building materials, visibility and human health.
Fortunately, the research has shown that the damage from current and historical levels of
acid rain has ranged from negligible (for example, on crops) to modest (for example, on
some lakes and streams). It is also clear that at current levels of acid rain deposition
there will be no significant increase in these measured effects over the next half
century. The causes and the distribution of acid rain over the United States through the
seasons are now fairly well-defined, and rapid technological advances to control the
emissions of the precursors of acid rain are occurring.10
When the interim report of 1987 came out, EPA officials and many environmentalists scoffed
at the results because they failed to match what was expected. Kulp resigned shortly
afterward and was succeeded by Dr. James Mahoney, who steered the program to completion
and oversaw the final report of 5,000 pages. Like Kulp, Mahoney stood firm against the
pressure from certain people in the environmental community to distort the interpretation
of masses of data and make them say that acid rain was a disaster. Failing to get the
report changed, these environmentalists and their political allies pushed through the
Clean-Air Act of 1990 before the final NAPAP report was issued. Senator John Glenn chided
his colleagues in the Senate when he said: "We spend over 500 million dollars on the
most definitive study of acid precipitation that has ever been done in the history of the
world, and then we do not want to listen to what [the experts] say."11 According to
Kulp, "The cost to society of the acid rain portion of the Clean-Air Act of 1990 will
total at least forty billion dollars, but the benefits will be hardly perceptible."12
The moral of the story is: Don't carry out expensive scientific evaluations if they will
have no influence in shaping final policy.
Wright traces environmental disagreements to their informational source. He writes:
"The uninformed public -- indeed, most of us -- is dependent on whatever media source
they encounter and can easily be misled into believing exaggerations and untruths"
(p. 87). He is right. Then he asks how people can avoid being misled. His answer:
"Look carefully into both sides of an issue and get in touch with the basic
scientific work underlying the issue" (p. 87). Although generally valid, this
approach neglects two facts: first, data often speak ambiguously, and second, bias is a
part of every individual, even the most prestigious scientists. Environmental issues in
particular seem fraught with both ambiguity and bias.
As a realist, Wright understands that the vast majority of people will not have access to
the appropriate refereed literature, nor the interest to read it, nor the specialized
understanding to evaluate it. So his recommendation is that people "search for media
with no obvious ties to a political agenda." Fine! But then he recommends Time,
Newsweek, Discover, Scientific American, and the Nature Conservancy Magazine. I subscribe
to all but Newsweek, and it is not at all obvious to me that these publications (except
Scientific American) lack a political agenda. Perhaps Wright is unaware that he himself
has an agenda, one which matches that of the publications he recommends. To him their
reporting probably reflects the perspective that he thinks all right-thinking people ought
to have. On the other hand, I read environmental articles by Time's Eugene Linden and
almost without exception detect a bias, one that is definitely not my own. Apparently,
bias -- or lack of same -- is in the eye of the beholder.
One is not required to read between the lines in the case of Charles Alexander of Time
magazine. During a global warming conference several years ago, he said: "As the
science editor of Time, I would freely admit that on [the global warming] issue we have
crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."13 Alexander's admission is
only the tip of the iceberg. Everette E. Dennis, Executive Director of The Freedom Forum
Media Studies Center, says that "U.S. newspapers and television (news magazines have
been interpretive vehicles for years) have begun to leave behind their search for
impartiality, however flawed that quest might have been."14 Even Time magazine's
Anastasia Toufexis wrote: "Much of today's political and social agenda is built
around flagrantly flimsy figures Too often exaggerated figures are used to mislead, raise
money or advance an agenda Environmental organizations tend to present the most alarming
scenarios to pump up the threat of global warming."15 She could easily have pointed
an accusatory finger at her own organization.
Another area where Wright and I differ is in his faith that certain environmental
organizations simply go where the science leads them. Of the EPA, Wright says the group
"makes a strong effort to base their regulatory rules on scientific research"
(p. 87). Why, then, did the EPA oppose NAPAP results on acid rain? Why did the EPA require
gasoline producers to use a minimum of 30% ethanol in their wintertime additives when
cheaper and equally effective oxygenated compounds were available? (The Supreme Court has
recently ruled that the EPA overstepped its authority.) When EPA administrator William K.
Reilly asked a panel of experts to evaluate the science at EPA, he got back a fifty-page
report that included these findings:
The agency often fails to consider appropriate scientific information early or often
enough in its decision making; fails to enlist routinely the best scientists -- especially
those at universities -- to provide it with data; and fails to evaluate the impact of its
regulations, thereby losing an opportunity to learn from past decisions.16
Wright also sees the environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in a light
different from mine. The specific NGOs he mentions are the Sierra Club, the Audubon
Society, the Wilderness Society, the League of Conservation Voters, Greenpeace, Zero
Population Growth, The Union of Concerned Scientists, the World Resources Institute, and
the World Watch Institute. He says they all "hire scientifically trained staff and
call on the findings of scientists for support" (p. 87). But my reading of literature
from these NGOs leads me to conclude that science sometimes becomes a handmaiden for a
political agenda. This is not to say that each group listed above is out to deceive
through scientific deck-stacking. But common sense tells us that advocates for a position
can be careless with the truth -- generally the more zealous, the more careless. The
constant internal prod for discernment is an absolute necessity for those who claim to be
seeking the truth -- myself included.
To the extent that adults are educated about environmental matters, what they know is
generally from print and TV journalism. Since journalists are overwhelmingly liberal in
their political outlook, this bias comes through to the public when environmental issues
are discussed. Under the heading "Environmentalist World View," Wright
articulates well what the media present as environmental orthodoxy. While he offers a
third way -- what he calls the "Christian world view" -- I sense that on the
specific issues addressed in his summary of the "environmentalist world view" he
is in substantial agreement. So insofar as the media curriculum in adult environmental
education is mastered by the public, Wright is probably pleased. In 1994, a Louis Harris
poll showed that it has been mastered. Asked to name "the greatest threat to human
life," more chose "destruction of environment" than any other perceived
danger.17 Earlier, a 1989 poll by CBS News and the New York Times found 80 percent of the
respondents agreed with this statement: "Protecting the environment is so important
that requirements and standards cannot be too tight and continuing environmental
improvements must be made regardless of the cost."18
Wright may be pleased as well with what is happening in the public schools -- both primary
and secondary. The crisis mentality is firmly in place. Thomas Harvey Holt investigated
some of what happens under the rubric of environmental "education" and described
his findings in an essay entitled: "Growing up green: are schools turning out
eco-activists?"19 What Holt found in curricula and in textbooks was a heavy dose of
politics to the detriment of scientific background. Industry and the free-market economy
were often denigrated and governmental solutions promoted. Students were even instructed
in environmental activism. For example, second-graders in a New York City public school
founded Kids-STOP (Save the Ozone Project) in order to "save the planet from the
deadly effects of ozone depletion caused by continuing release of chlorofluorocarbons into
the atmosphere."20 Upon hearing this, Jack Padolino, president of the Pocono
Environmental Education Center said: "Now what does a second-grader know about
chlorofluorocarbons?" The answer, of course, is: "Not much." Such
youngsters are reading a script, not expressing a judgment.
Holt went on to say that "many of those who shape the environmental education
curriculum believe that their purpose is not to weigh conflicting facts, values and
theories but to instill a sense of crisis."21 Ed Clark of the Wildlife Center of
Virginia is quoted as having said, "Understanding that the world is going to hell in
a handbasket is half of environmental education."22 I suggest that the other half is
to create pliant, frightened students who later will endorse drastic solutions to
overblown problems.
Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, provides an illustration of the environmental
indoctrination that reaches down to the lowest levels of our educational system. She
describes the day when
my son came home from school and ran up the stairs with his backpack in his hand and
announced with grave concern, like a perfect little Soviet child, that the air is so dirty
now that it makes buildings fall down. It erodes them, he told me, and makes them crumble
My son is afraid of capitalist polluters who are making the air unsafe to breathe and
making buildings fall down He said, "We had a movie in class, a Green movie"
When [our society goes] into one of these seizures of fashion, we turn a good thing,
protecting the environment, into a bad thing, environmental paranoia. We do not educate
our children. We traumatize them.23
If the bleak picture presented to Noonan's son were accurate and the world really were on
a fast road to destruction, one might argue that in the name of truth the chips must be
allowed to fall where they may. There is, however, a contingent of unknown size, including
me, who say it isn't so. Yes, there are environmental problems, and, yes, they need to be
addressed. But an essential part of the story is the significant accomplishment in
environmental remediation. The crisis approach is neither necessary to handle the
situations we face nor helpful to our society's psychic well-being.
With all sorts of religious spins being put on environmental matters, it was inevitable
that eventually a manifesto by evangelical Christians would come out. That day occurred in
late 1994 when Ron Sider as chief author, using scientific input from ecologist Calvin
DeWitt, composed the 1600-word position paper entitled "Evangelical Declaration on
the Care of Creation."24 Other than one sentence listing seven "degradations of
creation," the document links humans to their material environment with a number of
verbs. One set is in the past tense and bemoans what has happened to planet earth; humans
are said to have degraded, polluted, distorted, destroyed, devalued, used, forgotten to
take care of, and failed in their stewardship of the environment. A second set of verbs
urges certain wise actions -- cherish, care for, protect, heal, sustain, preserve,
nurture, respect, and extend Christ's healing to the environment (generally called
creation). Helped by vagueness, this Evangelical Declaration has drawn almost universal
approval from a host of well-known evangelical leaders, among them Richard Wright.25
Almost the only negative note was sounded by E. Calvin Beisner in World magazine.26
Focusing on the seven degradations of creation -- the contribution of Calvin DeWitt --
Beisner presented another side of the story. A subsequent issue of World carried an
exchange between Sider and Beisner.27
Is Beisner a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread? After all, the list of eminent
endorsers of the Declaration constitutes a formidable deterrent for an evangelical like
Beisner to speak out. My opinion is that Beisner's intent was "pinpoint bombing"
-- aiming at specific environmental issues on which he has some expertise. Certainly no
one in his right mind would oppose all the good verbs listed in the Declaration. But the
problem with words such as cherish and nurture is that they must be defined by specific
concrete acts, both individual and corporate. It is my judgment that Beisner, through his
critique of the Declaration is really saying, "Let the rubber meet the road; let us
wrestle with what it means specifically to be a good steward of God's world." I echo
that view and hope that discussions where this occurs find their way into future issues of
PSCF.
Although giving most attention to differences in outlook between himself and the
"evangelical backlash," Wright understands as well that there are
"fringe" groups entering environmental discussions with non-Christian religious
convictions. He discusses them in a section headed "Gaia, New Age, Eco-feminism and
Deep Ecology." I share his concerns and applaud his position. At the same time, I
fear that there are deviations from orthodoxy closer to mainstream Christianity than
Wright and I would like.
Orthodox Christians risk straying from the fundamentals of the faith, when their embrace
of "mainstream environmentalism" leads them to conclude that human activities
have brought the earth to the brink of disaster. For immature Christians, often young, it
may be only a short step from an earth presumed to be in mortal danger to the conclusion
that "saving the earth" must take priority over saving souls. In struggling to
be witnesses for Christ, they may be tempted to take an easier path -- namely, to jump on
the popular environmental bandwagon as a substitute for the more difficult witness to a
transcendent reality.
What might be called mid-course theological adjustments make the environmental option
increasingly attractive. These elevate environmental activism beyond its proper place in a
full-orbed Christian world view. They are rationalizations which often take the form of
downgrading the supremacy of the transcendent realm with its emphasis on reconciliation
with God and eternal life in his presence. Or they may elevate material reality to almost
a unity with the spiritual domain and so encourage utopian hopes for planet Earth, subtly
suggesting that environmental cleanliness is next to godliness.
Even more subtle is the implication that the condition of the earth in the last days
somehow influences the quality of the supernatural realm that will one day become
"all in all." It is as if God has set up a covenant with the human race on a
quid pro quo basis. How his people treat their planetary abode will ostensibly influence
him as he prepares his heavenly house for their future occupancy. On that view,
earth-keeping takes on the motivation of self-interest -- not a bad reason but usually not
the one trumpeted by Christian environmentalists.
There are, however, occasions on which theological orthodoxy is totally shunted aside to
make way for an environmental agenda. This is the case with Philip Hefner, Lutheran
theologian and editor of Zygon, a journal relating science and Christian faith. Hefner has
gone far beyond the looseness of speech that sometimes accompanies exuberance. Instead, he
has discarded a Christian world view for an entirely new metaphysical outlook. Here is how
he described it:
In order to best serve our self-understandings, we must recognize (1) our intrinsic
kinship with the rest of nature; (2) that our purpose as humans is to serve nature; (3)
that we are preparers for nature's future; (4) that our highest calling as humans is to
discern the dimensions of ultimacy in nature and to conceptualize them. In this we follow
God's own pattern of investing in nature as the greatest project.28
With Hefner, there is no way one can legitimately suggest that beneath ambiguous language
there really lies an orthodox world view. Hefner writes clearly and what he writes is not
historical Christianity. Instead, it is a radical exaltation of current concerns about
environmental problems and a clear demonstration that designing religious systems around
an environmental core is not the exclusive province of the avant-garde groups which Wright
describes in his paper.
Richard Wright is to be commended for his comprehensive overview of environmental
controversy. I hope that his paper, Beisner's response, and my critique stimulate further
discussion of this important subject. From my standpoint, that discussion should emphasize
papers which focus on a single environmental issue and are multidimensional -- including
scientific, economic, political and theological dimensions. It would also help to lower
the emotional pitch.
1Richard T. Wright, "Tearing Down the Green: Environmental Backlash in the
Evangelical Sub-culture," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, June 1995,
80-91.
2E. Calvin Beisner, Prospects for Growth, (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1990).
3Letter by E. Calvin Beisner and response by Richard T. Wright, Perspectives on Science
and the Christian Faith, Dec. 1995, 285-288.
4Karen T. Litfin, Ozone Discourses, (New York: Columbia University, 1994), 5, 6.
5Ibid, 79.
6Ibid, 81.
7Ibid, 81.
8Ileane Rudolph, "Consumer Reporter John Stossel: TV's Truth Sleuth," TV Guide,
28 January 1995, 43, 44, 46, 48.
9Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1992), 274.
10J. Laurence Kulp, "Acid Rain: Causes, Effects and Control," Regulation (The
Cato Review of Business and Government), Winter 1990, 41.
11Quoted in Eco-Sanity by Bast, Hill, and Rue, (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1994), 81.
12Laurence Kulp, personal communication, 1995.
13L. Brent Bozell and Brent H. Baker: And That's the Way it Isn't, (Alexandria, VA: Media
Research Center, 1990), 109.
14Everette E. Dennis, "The Re-Europeanization of the U.S. Media," Communique 9
(The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, an affiliate of Columbia University), no. 2,
(Oct. 1994): 2.
15Anastasia Toufexis,"Damned Lies and Statistics," Time, 26 April 1993.
16Janet Raloff, "Revamping EPA's Science," Science News, 11 April 1992, 234.
17Constance Holden,"Science: What the Public Thinks," Science 264, 13 May 1994,
902.
18P. J. O'Rourke, All the Trouble in the World, (New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press,
1994), 143.
19Thomas Harvey Holt, "Growing Up Green: Are Schools Turning Out Eco-Activists?"
Reason, Oct. 1991, 38-40.
20Ibid, 40.
21Ibid, 39.
22Ibid, 39.
23Peggy Noonan, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, (New York: Random House,
1994), 51-53.
24"Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation," Prism, Dec./Jan. 1994 (This
Declaration was reprinted in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, June 1995,
110-111).
25Randy Frame, "150 Sign `Care of Creation,'" Christianity Today, 4 April 1994,
76.
26E. Calvin Beisner, "Are God's Resources Finite?" World, 27 Nov. 1993, 10-13.
27Ron Sider, "Another View," World, 8 Jan. 1994, 22.
28Philip Hefner, "Nature: God's Great Project," Zygon 27, no. 3 (Sept. 1992):
327.