Skip to main content

Evangelicals divided

Image
By
Good for this young man for standing up in the face of blind, willful ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5QdwSvhnM

Unfortunately, wherever we find someone standing up for science and reason, in this case a sensible position on the environment and global warming in the church, there are plenty of those willing to push back for irrationality. Armed with straw man arguments, Tony Perkins takes aim at Johnathan Meritt for petitioning to have a greater acknowledgement about global warming within the faith. Signed by several prominent Southern Baptist leaders, the petition condemns the church as having been "too timid" on the issue.

Perkins refuses to look seriously at the issue, throwing up the straw man that, concerned with population, environmentalism promotes abortion and homosexuality. Oh yes, I remember the last time I heard Al Gore or Bill McKibbon encourage their audiences to go have an abortion and become homosexuals; wasn't it just last week? They must surely do it all the time, in Perkin's little world.

And also in Perkin's world, even if global warming scientists are right, who cares, because it will mean we've entered the End Times. So don't even bother taking any action, don't "throw away your SUV keys" because Jesus will rescue us from ourselves! And what if you are wrong, Mr. Perkins? What if it doesn't mean the end, and we have to deal with the effects that we've brought upon ourselves for centuries to come, what then?

The petition advanced said that if no action is taken, the church risks looking "uncaring, reckless and ill-informed". Look no further than Mr. Perkins for what those three characteristics look like.
Labels:

Comments

  1. ZenFebruary 6, 2011 at 9:51 AM

    Mr. Perkins' militant and willfully dangerous beliefs are a global threat. Would it be correct to call him a Christian Eco Terrorist?

    I mean, he probably has some mean labels he likes to pin on those who don't accept his dangerous myopic worldview, shouldn't we return the favor? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Herla cyningFebruary 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM

    You can certainly call him "irresponsible," if you like; "eco-terrorist" may be a bit too much. :-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

What Creationists Don't Understand

By
There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...
Post a Comment
Read more