We hear, watch, and read about the increasing hysteria from leftists about anthropogenic climate change. Their tendentious, skewed, and inaccurate evidence is exceptionally myopic. This evolution-based atheistic posturing is presenting change made by humans as bad, and ignoring the fact that we have been changing our environments from the beginning.
 |
| Credit: Freeimages / Flavio Takemoto |
Let's go with atheistic thinking for a moment. Since they think that we are nothing but advanced animals, what about critters? Animals (like beavers) transform their own environments, why can't we? Also, are animals bad because they change things?
The truth is, we have been effecting the world wherever we live. Somehow, modifications are disastrous in the minds of secularists. You want changes to be made? Yes, there are changes that must be made, but they go far deeper than our behavior. You won't like the truth. To learn more, click on "No New Human Influence Under the Sun", and I hope you come back for the next item.
As I said earlier, these climate change alarmists are myopic. Or perhaps they are conveniently forgetting that climate change has been used as a scare tactic since the 1930s. If they don't take too kindly to doing that much research, mayhaps they can go back and see the faulty predictions since 1970. But no, the latest propaganda is that we only have ten or twelve years to live unless we destroy our lives and civilization, conveniently giving money to leftist globalists, right this doggone minute. They said that before.
"But Cowboy Bob, the predictions are right this time!"
Why? Because they fit an agenda and confirm globalist biases? They have the same fundamentally flawed reasoning and presuppositions that led to risible predictions in the past.
Whenever an atheist or evolutionist will complain that something is wrong or evil, that person is tacitly denying their naturalistic viewpoint and standing on the Christian worldview. According to them, it is wrong to reject their twisted climate change data. We are bad, so children are recruited to spread the fear and given erroneous "facts" to promote an agenda. Indeed, many people have made climate change activism into their religion, and they are quick to get on the prod when exposed to inconvenient facts. Gullibility, yes. Healthy skepticism, no.
Greta Thunberg has been dehumanized and made a pawn. The "Church" of Sweden says she is the "successor of Jesus". By the way, why is she telling off the United States and other countries that are successful on dealing with pollution and emissions? Tell it to the ChiComs and India.
In a secular worldview, why does doing what they think is wrong a problem? We are bundles of chemicals responding to our impulses; we were each born this way. For that matter, we are at the top of the evolutionary chain, so we can do whatever we please if it helps us thrive as persons.
In reality, we are God's creation and he is in control. We need to humble ourselves and repent. Also, we are not to trash the planet, but to be stewards of it.
The classic picture of the Scientist is a dispassionate person in a white lab coat looking at a test tube, then recording the data on a clipboard, which journals report in boring text. Real scientists are ordinary people with biases, passions and worldviews that color how they look at things. Quite often, they have strong feelings about what their fellow human beings should do. The word “should” implies moral standards.I hope you will read all of this article. To do so, click on "Moral Passion by Evolutionists Makes No Sense".
Philosophers try to see if ideas comport with each other. Incongruent ideas are illogical by nature. Consider the conundrum of the evolutionary biologist (or any secular scientist, for that matter). Are their propositions consistent?
1. All things came into being without purpose or goal.
2. People should change their behavior.
There is no “should” word in the Stuff Happens Law of Darwinism. If the human race goes extinct, so be it. If the world heats up and we all die, tough luck. Stuff happens. Without a universal, timeless canon of right and wrong—a moral guide star—scientists’ opinions about what people should do have no force. They are just empty opinions that will evolve over time like everything else. Yet in spite of that foundational belief, scientists and journals frequently engage in “should-ing” everyone else. That makes no sense.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
