Last week we invited people espousing two radically different world views – that of Bible believers and that of those adhering to the prevailing alternative – each to think through the implications of the very generous assumption that human activity is able to effect the climate of the Earth to the extent of threatening the existence of civilization or even of the Earth itself.
Without apology the Biblical creationist affirms that the absolutely sovereign, promise keeping Lord God will never permit the utter annihilation of the earth. This does not mean that we are indifferent to reckless waste disposal, accidental oil spills, or the squandering of resources. It means that we regard the latter as just that: resources which God has given Mankind. We subject the concerns of conservationism to greater concerns: the glory of our God and the welfare of our neighbors.
For example, we regard Draconian restrictions on industrial development, established in hopes of achieving a theoretical and negligible change in the average global temperature, as very bad. We calculate the negative economic impact they have on millions of our fellow men and women and say NO. Biblically regarding the human race as the divinely appointed steward of the Earth, we want so called "fossil fuel" reserves to be responsibly developed for human benefit, not neglected on account of climate change hysteria.
Now to our second group. First, let us ask them WHY must the planet be saved, from their perspective? When one denies the Creator, recognition of the transcendent ethical realities of good and evil which He established cannot be maintained consistently. So why is it "good" to save the planet? What is good and what is evil? Deep questions easily brushed off for the moment but unavoidable in the long run…
From their perspective, if the earth is to be destroyed and humanity with it, so what? If eternal extinction is the ultimate destiny of the human race and all life, are not efforts to restrain anthropogenic climate change ultimately pointless? Save the planet for what, or for who? If the inevitable heat death of the universe is its grand finale, why rearrange the deck furniture on the Titanic of history?
From their perspective, climate change crusading is nothing more than a pragmatism that accords with subjective aspirations. By what imperative can it be insisted that other people – i.e. other units of biochemical activity descended from the first bit of protoplasm which was jump started by a bolt of lighnting in a primordial pond –get on board with that crusade?
They commonly attribute amazing powers to this mysterious, never observed process called evolution. Contrary to everything that can be soberly observed about the deleterious effects of mutation, they affirm that on account of it life forms are ever becoming more complex.
OK, so what if humanity's evolution into a life form able to make machines that emit tons of hydrocarbons and dreadful weapons of mass destruction eventuates in the extinction of life forms less fit to survive in that environment? Isn't that the very nature of evolution by natural selection? So what if whales and pachyderms and polar bears go extinct? Hey, they just didn't make natural selection's cut! Tough keratin outgrowth from the tips of mammalian digits! (A.k.a. toenails)
This writer will go on recycling aluminum and plastic, aiming to use energy frugally (don't touch my A.C!), and hoping future generations will be able to see living elephants and Moby Dick's kin. And he will pray to the God of the Bible against the metastasizing of hysteria and pseudo science, and for the advance of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, Prince of peace.