Jumping on the Global Warming Bandwagon

Global warming concerns me. It probably doesn’t concern me for the reasons you might think, though. What concerns me about global warming is that not many people are challenging it. Let me clarify at the beginning—I am not saying that the earth is not heating up, or that we should not treat the environment responsibly. I am saying that in the last six months, it seems that everyone has decided that global warming is here, its destruction will be complete in nature, and we are directly responsible for all of it.

There are a few questions I have about global warming that not many people seem to be asking. First, how do we know what temperature the earth is supposed to be? The standard scientific view says that the earth is 14 billion years old. We have accurate temperature data for certain parts of the world for the last 150 years. By evaluating ice-core samples, scientists have a pretty good idea of the temperatures for the last 1,000 years. This means that we have empirical temperature data for roughly 7.14x10^-6% of all earth’s history. It seems odd to me that one could take such a small data sample and make such large claims with it. Besides, I recall learning about ice ages and heat waves that happened long before humans appeared. How is the current warming trend different?

Second, the environment is dynamic, with a multitude of factors at work. How can we be so sure that man-made carbon dioxide is the root cause an impending catastrophe? Carbon dioxide is just one piece of the environmental pie. I am not suggesting that it plays no role whatsoever, but there is no guarantee that if we all stopped driving cars, the earth would suddenly revert to “normalcy” (whatever that is).

Third, computer models predicting future temperature changes vary widely. For that matter, the five-day weather forecast isn’t always accurate. Why do we put so much stock in them? Is it because it’s technology (which, of course, is always good) used by scientists (who, of course, are always correct and unbiased)? Where have our critical-thinking skills gone?

I am afraid that our society has yet again succumbed to the tyranny of the present. As Ann Coulter stated a few years ago, “For many people, history started this morning.” Never mind that twenty years ago the feared global ice age never happened (I am just old enough to remember this). Never mind that Y2K was a dud. “This time, we mean it!”

Again, let me stress that I am not advocating mistreating our planet. If we can take better care of things down here, then by all means, let’s do it! But I fear that we are blindly following the latest cultural craze, which may or may not turn out to be true. (If it turns out to be false in twenty years, I guarantee that no one will admit to having believed it—it will be forgotten and abandoned without a second thought.) We should be critical of global warming, not because of a lack of concern for the environment, but because history’s past failures demand it of us.

Lesson in World History

I have been working my way through Modern Times by Paul Johnson. As always, history is a great teacher. I have two examples of this.

1. Whenever I watch the local evening news (for the record, I never watch the national news), the death toll in Iraq is almost always mentioned. Usually it is reported that 8-10 people died that day, and about once per week someone from Colorado dies. Since the beginning of the war, I have been against this practice of daily death-toll reports. This is not because I don’t care about the people who die fighting, or because I am a pro-war zealot (in reality, I have mixed feelings about it and therefore do not have an “opinion” per se). I am against it because there is no comparison made to it. This is where history comes in. Johnson relates staggering numbers of deaths in and around WWII. Tens of millions of people died unnatural deaths during this time. “By December 1941 Hitler had about 8,700,000 Jews under his rule. Of these he had by early 1945 murdered at least 5,800,000…” (p. 415 in Johnson). Six million people were systematically exterminated at an average of roughly 4,800 per day for over three years—and that was just one man’s contribution to the death toll. When we bow to the tyranny of the present, 10 soldiers’ deaths per day sounds like an atrocity. In comparison to 4,800 civilians’ deaths per day, we see things could be almost infinitely worse. Again, I do not wish to belittle the memory of those who have died, but given the history of wars, Iraq is not that bad of one.

2. I have also noticed that a lot of people think President Bush is not very smart (yes, I know, I’m quite observant). In fact, I came across this quote about the President yesterday: “He [is] seen as well-meaning, intellectually limited, ignorant, inarticulate…” This quote, however, is from Johnson, p. 461, and he is describing President Eisenhower. Eisenhower himself promoted this myth for a variety of reasons. In reality, he was “a man of keen political intelligence and penetration…When he spoke of such matters seriously and in a protected official circle, insights of a high order flashed out time after time…” “He often pretended ignorance [at press conferences]…to avoid giving answers which plain English could not conceal…” (pp. 462-3) I am not suggesting that Bush is pulling an “Eisenhower”, but I have thought for a long time that people generally underestimate the President, which is based primarily on two factors: 1) the perceived popularity that comes with bashing the President, and 2) he fumbles his words often while speaking. I am not defending Bush, his war plan, or what he ate last night; I am just saying that history suggests that he might not be as dumb as everyone takes him for.

I am not a very political person, and I am not pro-war or a Bushophile. If anything, I am only trying to live out another of my maxims: If a majority of people are doing it, then there must be some problem with it.

Diversity is only skin-deep, but idiocy is to the bone

We had a good discussion in our Bible study last night. Out of that, some good thoughts on race and diversity were mentioned; I would like to discuss a few of them.

1. What is diversity, anyway? Society tries to tell us conflicting ideas about this. On the one hand, we are supposed to treat each other equally, irrespective of race, class, etc. On the other hand, we are not allowed to forget even for an instant a person's race, class, etc. This tension has led to a ridiculous reality. We are supposed to treat each other like equals, but the moment we try to do so, frivolous charges of racism and bigotry abound. For instance, there is the United Negro College Fund. What if there were a United White College Fund? How about the National Association for the Advancement of White People? I'm not advocating the creation of these groups, but are we not going against Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech? He wanted people to be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Imagine a white person saying that today to a crowd of white people. Double standard, anyone?

2. Why is diversity only skin-deep? If a black man and a white man grow up as neighbors in Detroit, I would tend to think that they had more in common with each other than the white man in Detroit would have with a white man from South Africa. Is it not the height of superficiality to suppose that every person of the same color is exactly the same? In our Bible study, for example, we are all Caucasian, but we are certainly not a homogeneous unit. My good friend in the study thinks differently than me on many important issues, and his life experience is vastly different than mine--but the amount of melanin in our skin is roughly the same. Does that mean that we are not diverse from one another? Hardly.

3. Certain people profit from racism and discrimination and do not want them to end. Have you ever thought about what people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do for a living? They profit from victimization. Whenever someone performs a racist act, these two men (I only single them out because they are well-known examples) run to the nearest camera. They get national exposure from people hurting one another in specific ways. What if racism and discrimination ended today? You would find Jackson and Sharpton in the unemployment line tomorrow, no doubt claiming they themselves were now victims of discrimination. In the same way, the media sensationalize the news (including episodes like the recent Don Imus fiasco) because that attracts an audience. These people do not want bad things to end; on the contrary, they propagate and sensationalize them for profit.

I know a discussion of this sort is somewhat taboo, but these societal problems will not go away if we just ignore them long enough. What if we started to treat each person as if he or she had real worth as an individual, regardless of any personal characteristics? We need to combat the reigning ideology of diversity both with argument and counter-cultural action.

A Word on Intelligence

I thought I would take a moment to remind everyone what Intelligent Design is, and what it is not. I recently read some material on the Internet about ID, and the usual mischaracterizations were present. So let's review, shall we? I will enumerate.

1. ID is the scientific movement that believes certain organisms cannot have come to their present state via naturalistic evolutionary forces. These organisms have or contain irreducibly complex or specifically complex traits. Inference to the best explanation would lead a person to conclude, in ID's view, that such traits were designed.

2. While ID's main proponents are Christians, ID does not name the Intelligence of which it speaks as YHWH. Any person who believes in a personal god (personality being a prerequisite for creativity) could adhere to ID in theory.

3. ID is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Either life evolved naturally, or it was created supernaturally. I know of no tertium quid. (Theistic evolution contains a contradiction--evolutionary theory rules out any divine activity a priori.) When examining irreducibly or specifically complex organisms or traits, then, one must conclude that they either evolved or were created. Evolution has not yet been able to come up with a good explanation of how such complexity has arisen. ID has posited a reasonable explanation based on observation. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation would be that the organisms or traits in question were created.

4. "ID is creationism in disguise." This is perhaps my favorite misconception, because the proponent of this proposition unwittingly confesses to his or her own ignorance by attempting to point out the ignorance of others. I have read a fair bit of ID literature, and I have not come across a single reference to Genesis 1-3, stated or implicit. (Dembski does mention his faith in Intelligent Design; if he quotes Genesis as well, then I have missed it and apologize.) It is true that ID does complement creationism, but ID does not necessarily lead to creationism, and there is no evidence for the claim that these two "isms" are the same. (As an aside, usually when I hear this statement made, it is an exercise in question-begging, thus giving credence to my argument.)

5. "ID is not science." Up until about 1850, most scientists were men of faith. Then, as a result of views first formed during the Enlightenment, a dichotomy emerged. Science withdrew itself from anything to do with faith, the supernatural, God, etc, by erecting an artificial--though infinite--barrier between fact and value. Therefore, any idea that references an intelligent agent outside of human beings is labeled "unscientific" from the outset. This is, of course, a huge hurdle to the development of new ideas and the progression of scientific thought. Think of it this way: If a divine hand really is involved with the goings on of life on earth, then science has been fundamentally wrong for over 150 years. This little exercise alone should make it abundantly clear that science and religion need not be completely separate. Science needs religion to provide its very foundation, or at least to offer a healthy critique of it. Back to the main point, though. ID is testable because scientists can compare known designed items (outboard motors, arrowheads, writing, etc) to items found in nature. Therefore a scientist can test and validate certain hypotheses related to design. Therefore, ID can follow the scientific method and should be correctly labeled as a scientific theory.

I could go on, but this covers most of the basics. Please do your best to avoid some of the pitfalls I have mentioned should you ever find yourself in an evolution-vs.-ID debate (especially if you are debating me).

What's Wrong with the World?

G.K. Chesterton was once asked to write an essay for the London Times on the topic of "What's Wrong with the World?" His submission was as follows:

Dear Sirs:
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton

Victoria's Secret Response.

Well, I have received a response from the email I sent yesterday to Victoria's Secret. I must admit, they do respond quickly.

Dear Valued Client,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Victoria's Secret Stores window
displays.

Victoria's Secret understands and respects the opinions of others about
what may be judged to be fashionable. We continually evaluate important
input from our clients and want to thank you for your time and
suggestions.

Thank you for your interest in Victoria's Secret.

I can already feel how valued I am. The question now is, do I send a letter to the store in question, or do I let it go?

Victoria's Secret Letter.

I wanted to post an email I sent to Victoria's Secret's website today:

Dear Sir or Ma’am:

I was in Southwest Plaza Mall in Littleton, Colorado, this afternoon, and I happened to pass by your store. I noticed a large poster of a completely naked woman was on display inside. Thankfully, she was concealing the more private parts of her body. I was wondering what piece of merchandise this model was advertising, especially since she was not wearing any clothing.

This picture was risque and obviously meant to be alluring. It was, in my opinion, soft-core pornography, and I am concerned that it is being displayed in public in your store, where any young children who pass by can see it plainly--even if they do not enter the store. I wholeheartedly disapprove of the use of this picture (or any like it) in any of your stores, and I will not be making any purchases in your store as long as this type of image is portrayed there. I understand that as a lingerie retailer, you would want to have pictures of women in your product. Although I often do not agree with the manner in which you take these pictures, I understand the business aspect of such decisions. To descend to displaying naked women (not nude, for there is no art being done here), however, crosses the line of respectable business in every way. I urge you to remove all such pictures from your stores and catalogues.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Some of you may think I am being a bit prudish on this. I am not. I don't appreciate being bombarded by eight-foot-high pornographic pictures while trying to find Waldenbooks. And I especially don't appreciate the fact that teenage guys are seeing it. It's hard enough for a teenage guy to deal with his own urges. He doesn't need any "help" from seductive pictures that a blind man could see from outer space.

I don't want to be some renegade moral crusader on this, but this is ridiculous. I would urge anybody who reads this not to buy any product from Victoria's Secret as long as these types of pictures are being shown there. And I think I will walk on the other side of the mall from now on.

If I get a response, I will post it here.