Re: [asa] Creation Care

*SOME evangelicals that choose to deny global warming is real and not those
who might be suspicious of overarching "solutions" are what I am aiming at
here.
*
Ok, fair enough. The list of signatories to the "Climate Change: An
Evangelical Call to Action" document is a reasonably broad spectrum,
though: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/signatories You are right,
though, that there is a big division among the heavy-hitters, with the
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance on the other side (
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/CalltoTruth.pdf) It's interesting
that many Christian liberal arts college profs signed the "Call to Action,"
while the most prominent evangelical social conservatives (Dobson, Colson,
etc.) signed the "Call to Truth."

So let me amend my too-positive assessment of the evangelical response a bit
-- it seems evangelical leaders in the U.S., once again, are hopelessly
divided without any apparent middle ground.

BTW, how does the ISA's criticism of the scientific consensus in the "Call
to Truth" stand up? And is Lindzen an evangelical (he's a signer of the ISA
"Call to Truth")? How are evangelicals in the UK, and other traditional
Christians, approaching this?

On 1/26/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/26/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Christians believe things not in absence of the evidence but in the
> > very teeth of it.
> >
> > I think you're projecting problems concerning origins onto global
warming. The fact is that evangelicals have been remarkable in their
acceptance of global warming as a real problem. If the climate scientists
aren't convincing the public, it isn't the Christians' fault.
>
>
> Let me be more precise here. SOME evangelicals that choose to deny global
warming is real and not those who might be suspicious of overarching
"solutions" are what I am aiming at here. I would be ecstatic if the
evangelical community would as a whole support what the President proposed
in the SotU. Some may grouse that it is not enough but it is a good start.
>
> Rolling up multiple comments. I agree with you concerning a carbon tax vs.
cap and trade. Jim Hansen's take of a slowly ratcheting tax also makes sense
so that we don't destroy the economy in order to save the planet. The last
few years show that our economy can handle slowly increasing fuel costs.
Large price shocks would be a different story, however. Slow changes also
fit well into market-based R&D fixes to the problem.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.