Misconceptions on Evolution and Truth

There was a time, (maybe a little less than 4 years ago) where I was very adamant about the religion/evolution argument. I fought on blogs and with some people in person regarding the issue of evolution. I did not have as clear of an understanding of evolution as I do now, but at the time, I think I was on the right path.  However, in the last few years I've put evolution arguments on the back burner and focused more on climate change. I had forgotten about the ignorance people have when it came to evolution and its role in religion.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a lecture on science and faith with Dr. Heath Ogden and Dr. Heaton. They presented it well, I thought. One memorable thing Dr. Ogden said was, "I am a husband, a father, a brother . . . an evolutionary biologist, and a Mormon." He then went on about understanding God, and how he can see through this world God's work and glory and that through it he can understand God better, saying, "God is a husband, a father, a brother . . . an evolutionary biologist, and a Mormon." It was a great comparison and thought provoking view of God. Dr. Ogden spoke of evolution, and truth, and seeking. How evolution is abundant in life and how the church is not, was not, and should not become an entity that is against science. Quoting Brigham Young who said that all truth, (he specifically mentions science) is part of our doctrine.

Dr. Heaton spoke for a shorter amount of time, but was every bit as powerful. He spoke on how our faith, our testimonies can be strengthened by this. That knowledge is important and something that should be sought after, and how important questions are. He spoke less on evolution and more on trusting that the Lord knows what he is doing, but also trusting that he has left it up to us to determine what is truth and what is not.

They were amazing talks. At the end there was a question and answer section. One kid raised his hand and asked about the idea that the Earth is made from many other planets, and some of those planets had dinosaurs on them. It was obvious that he believed the Earth to be 6,000 years old. It was disappointing that after the talks he still could only understand evolution on a small scale. This idea that only parts of evolution are true and others are not is so far fetched it makes me want to scream. And while this person, I am sure had good intentions but this ignorance and this being thrown to and fro from any wind of doctrine needs to be put aside. I'm not trying to pick on this kid who asked an honest question. I am trying to get the point across that he should never have been so misinformed.

Maybe what it boils down to is having an open mind with science and religion, and when you have questions consult both, study, search out answers and do everything you can to obtain truth. Having an understanding of what truth really is.

An Obligation to the Environment : On Global Warming

In recent years the arguments for and against climate change, or global warming have grown, escalating into a hot topic. It is a debate on whether or not the globe is heating because of human interaction and carbon dioxide levels. But on no front has this argument been so widely fought against than within the confines of religion. Much like the debate over evolution, the argument seems to be stemmed from a disbelief, or and unwillingness to acknowledge certain aspects of science. Where scientific proof shows one way of acceptance towards a subject, many within religion feel that it goes against their own personal beliefs. I argue that global warming, (and by extension, science) can fit and work with religion and that it is the moral obligation of Christians, and even all religions to, if not only believe in climate change, make active steps to help reduce humanities effects on the planet.

It would seem, however, that one must first have an understanding of global warming in order to understand the debates and misunderstandings that continually arise. I wish to briefly describe how it is that science can show that climate change is indeed happening at an exponential rate, and how we can see that it is human caused rather than by the Earths natural cycles. I feel it is important to understand the topic for as Aldo Leopold said, “ We can only be ethical in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in.”¹ 

There is a simple method to see what CO₂ levels were throughout Earths history. In glaciers we can take samples of air which have been trapped in the ice, (air bubbles). With these we can measure the amount of CO₂ in the air at the time the bubble was formed. We can see rises and falls from roughly 150-280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) CO₂, spanning 400 thousand years. The trend being a change every 50 thousand years. This change greatly depends on the Earths orbit. The orbit of our planet fluctuates, as well as pivots on its axis much like a top, causing the earths temperature to rise and fall, thus giving us ice-ages and warm periods: low amounts of CO₂ create a cooling, and give us an ice-age, and the opposite happens with high measurements of CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, since the industrial revolution the level of CO₂ has gone from the average of 280 up to 360-380 ppmv. An unprecedented amount. Again, the more CO₂ the more heat, with an average temperature raising anywhere from 1.5C to 4C each time the carbon dioxide levels double.²

However, there is still doubt that this increase is caused by human interaction by those that are skeptic of climate change or even science and the scientific method. And so, how does science show that it is human caused? We can record the types of CO₂ in the atmosphere. There are three major CO₂ bases we record: 4CO₂, 13/12CO₂, 14CO₂. CO₂ base 13/12 comes from very old and dead plants. CO₂ base 14 comes from volcanoes, etc. CO₂ base 4 comes from newer plants. We can see that in our atmosphere there is mostly high concentrations of 12/13CO₂. This comes from fossil fuels, or very old plants and shows not only is there much, much more CO₂ in the atmosphere than any other time in the Earths history, but that it is human caused³

Again, it seems that, regardless of how you feel about the subject, the issue of global warming is very strongly tied to religion. Why is that? Why is there so much debate within a religious community on the validity of scientific discovery? It is because religion is a source of moral growth, it is something that can bring about change in massive levels and can help people to grow morally. These morals affect us in our daily aspects and in what we constantly deal with. When it comes to daily issues we are able to make decisions according to our moral character. Global warming has become a major concern and topic, thus calls on us to act as we see morally fit.⁴

The environment is tied to us emotionally and in many ways we grow through it and learn from it. This is an important aspect of our moral obligation to the environment. My relationship with the environment spawned at an early age. From as far back as I can remember I would go, with my father and older brother, on “Journey's of Discovery.” During these outings, (which carried from walking up a river for several hours to riding our bikes during downpours), we were taught to understand and love nature. We grew close to the ecology of life, and as Henry David Thoreau would attest to, we would “suck out all the marrow of life.”⁵ We were in nature, and nature was a part of us. This is an important point that needs to be made whenever discussing nature, I feel: becoming a part of nature is a necessary step in understanding science's roll in the environment. In Steven Peck's, The Mormon Organon, he says that “[an appreciation to nature] allowed me to look into the wild creatures eyes and see them as others—as a kind of self that was similar to me and yet different . . . Part of coming to know nature came from being in it.”⁶

However, modern life has moved us away from the environment. With our cities and houses, with few plants and often times small yards we bring a sterility to our lives and exclude an understanding and appreciation for ecology. Unfortunately, this eventually brings about apathy towards our environment. We can measure the affects that this apathy has given us easily, namely global warming. This apathy can be seen as a side effect of moral choice through religious fervor. Many feel that they have no obligation to the environment, believing that it is not a moral issue. Unfortunately, this leads to skepticism in science and of scientists.

With our dependency of fossil fuels we will never be able to stop the effects of climate change unless drastic measures are made. Currently the U.S. Has 5 percent of the worlds population, but uses 25 percent of the worlds energy, and is the largest CO₂ producer. Automobiles are responsible for a third of the CO₂ produced.⁷ It is obvious that steps need to be taken, but the biggest question that tends to be asked seems to not be how, but why? (This stemming, again, from religious doubt).

The United states has many moral issues that it faces constantly. However, while still being a superpower in the world today, as well as having the largest economy, the U.S. has fallen far behind on what is one of the biggest challenges of our time. This is something that affects all walks of life. While global warming is an international issue, it is a particular moral challenge for Americans because of the statistics listed above. Without our concerted effort to address this, there is little hope it can be solved. Every one of us in the U.S. contributes to this problem. We pollute, but we ask environmental organizations to clean up after us and solve our problems. It is time for every segment of our culture to integrate care for earth into its policies. And as a mostly Christian nation we should feel even stronger moral obligation to the stewards of the Earth.

In lieu of scientific evidence in the last twenty years many countries have made drastic changes in how they treat the environment. Many, like Holland and Denmark, rely on biking and public transportation for almost all of their transportation needs. This is because of environmental awareness that has come because of this issue of climate change. In fact, many other nations have hit this issue head on, educating their people in an academic fashion within universities.⁸

While relying on scientific research as backing, having an understanding of that process, it seems that in recent years, many have moved from a purely scientific argument for the environment and climate change to a more ethical approach, or rather, arguments geared towards a more ethos approach in the dealings of ecology. This seems to have been done greatly in part to help bring the science or ecology of this issue into the same setting as religion.⁹ And so, looking at the issue morally, brings us a perspective that relates to an obligation that we not as individuals, but as humans, as a culture or society have to act on global warming. “We search for an ethics that appropriately “follows nature.” We want to optimize human fitness on earth, and to do this morally . . . a comprehensive ethics needs to account for the goods of culture, of right and wrong withing personal relations, a humanized ethics.”¹⁰

This view is an interesting one. Because, while there is still some doubt of global warming, and some have taken a political stance on the subject, and others have claimed that the science behind global warming is incorrect, these arguments become invalid in the face of moral obligation. This is because, when we take a moral approach to global warming we can bypass the question of how, and move on to the moral question of why. This view not only makes the how unimportant, it allows for the moral approach to be driven by several rolls. Our roll to ourselves, personally, our roll as a culture, or as apart of humanity, and finally, our roll to the environment.

In each of these rolls there is one common factor that needs to be removed in order for us to understand our moral obligation and why we even have an obligation in the first place. “Nature, in other words, is always ventral to our spiritual and cultural self-understanding, since it instructs us first about our own nothingness, a discovery that then tempers our acceptance of our significance. . .[there needs be] a thorough debunking of the specialness of humanity.”¹¹ This leads to the idea that awe and wonder are our human privilege, and not specific knowledge of possession.

And so, while having a knowledge and understanding of the current climate change issues is important in order to fully comprehend our environmental needs, the outcome is rather more significant as it leads us to act morally in the face of climate change.

Here is where religion and science make a unique alliance. In 1998, a conference brought many religious and science minded individuals together to discuss the issue of global warming. Among the proceedings it became obvious to all present that this issue was, while based in science, a moral issue. An issue that directly related to religious belief and teaching, giving those religious leaders present at the conference a sense of the imperative to do something about it. As a result of the conference, religious leaders around the worlds agreed in saying,

“We believe a consensus now exists, at the highest level of leadership across a significant spectrum of religious traditions, that the cause of integrity and justice must occupy a position of utmost priority for people of faith. Response to this issue can and must cross traditional religious and political lines. It has the potential to unify and renew religious life.”¹²

It is within the moral code of all major religions to address this issue of global warming, and do everything in their power to support a cleaner Earth. In fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had taken great steps recently to green its architecture, making it abundantly clear that this is done as a religious institutional action because of climate change.¹³ Many other organizations are counteracting this religious view that climate change is unimportant and can be disregarded either because of a non-belief in scientific theory and discovery, or an apathetic view towards our planet, feeling that their own religious beliefs do not specify or give reason to act on climate change. However, “to dismiss the science outright because it conflicts with or presents complications for a world view that has largely been shaped by economic, partisan, or ideological values is neither religious not ethical.”¹⁴

The science behind climate change is accurate. However, regardless of ones own interpretation of facts or unwillingness to find truth in scientific theory the moral action that is required because of climate change is not excused. Religious belief makes us accountable for our actions and as part of that, we must understand our roll on the Earth. Without religious backing, we still have a moral obligation to the Earth and to all of its species in order to insure a better place to live, to thrive and to progress. Viewing climate change as our moral obligation rids us of the debate of rather the science is accurate or not, and holds us to a higher standard of humane living. That is, to treat it as a threat and ethically move forward with that understanding and do all that we can to make our ecology, our planet a place in which all things living there can thrive and grow.

Notes

1. Aldo Leopold, A Sand Country Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 214

2. Wolfgang Cramer, Alberte Bondeau, F. Ian Woodward, I. Colin Crentice, Richard A Betts, Victor Brovkin, Peter M. Cox, Veronica Fisher, Jonathan A. Foley, Andrew D. Friend, Chris Kucharik, Mark R. Lomas, Mavin Ramankutty, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin Smith, Andrew White, Christine Young-Molling, Global Change Biology, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 357-373, April 2001.

3. Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Bloomsbury Press, New York, pp. 169-215 (2010).

4. George Hadley, Faith and the Ethics of Climate Change, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 12, (2011).

5. Thoreau, Henry David, Walden, ch. 2, (1854).

6. Peck, Steven, The Mormon Organon, Lulu Press, pp. 72, (2010).

7. Sagan, Carl, Billions and Billions, Ballantine Books, pp. 145, (1997).

8. Andrew Jamison, The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, pp 3, (2001).

9. Andrew Jamison, The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, pp 170, (2001).

10. Holmes Rolston, Environmental Ethics, Temple University Press, pp. Xi-xii, (1988).

11. George Hadley, Faith and the Ethics of Climate Change, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 26, (2011).

12. Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions, Ballantine Books, pp. 170, (1997).

13. Kristen Moulton, LDS Church Shows Off Its New 'Green' Prototype,” June 4, 2010, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/ 4947867173/church-lds-meetinghouse-davies.html.csp.

14. George Hadley, Faith and the Ethics of Climate Change, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 15, (2011).
    

    
    

In Days We End book for sale tomorrow

In Days We End is going to be for sale on tomorrow, March 27th. Honestly, I have no idea how much it will cost, but I'm going to make it as cheap as possible. So, tomorrow, everyone get a copy and sit down with your family and read on how one would best survive a zombie apocalypse. It's good stuff and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I've enjoyed writing it.

A Short Stay in Hell -- Out today!

Seriously! I cannot recommend this book enough. Obviously as it regularly shows up on my blog. However, this is the real deal. The official 1st printing through Strange Violin Editions has come out today and I could not be more excited. I'll be pushing all of my current reads aside for this one. This new cover art is also pretty exciting. Done by a good friend, Matt Page.

So here is some info about it:
"Soren Johansson has always believed he'll be reunited with his loved ones in an eternal hereafter. Then, he dies and rather than finding himself in a glorious paradise he wakes to find himself cast by a God he has never heard of into a Hell whose dimensions he can barely grasp: a vast library he can only escape by finding the book that contains the story of his life.

In this haunting existential horror novella, author, philosopher, and ecologist Steven L. Peck explores a subversive vision of eternity, taking the reader on a journey through the afterlife of a world where everything everyone believed in turns out to be wrong."


And of course, some official review blurbs:

"I closed it last night and this morning it was still haunting me . . ." 

"I cannot recommend this book enough."

"This book is much better than it has any business being"

So, everyone needs to go out and purchase a copy. Go here to buy a copy.
You can also visit the books official site at shortstayinhell.com.

We can prevent our own extinction

 

  Source. Source.

Summer Semester

Well, we all knew that it was inevitable. I did, anyway. But I have just signed up for 1st and 2nd block for the Summer Semester. Yup. How exciting. This means a lot of changes for me. For one, these classes are during the day. That means that I will be working, (starting in May) during the evening/night. I'm a little excited to start classes during the day. Seems more... real? Anyway, here is the plan, so far:

1st Block:
Biotech 1010
College Chem I 1610
Chem Lab 1615

2nd Block
Principles of Statistics (this may change if I can get my counselor to wave the prereq requirement of Chem II, so I can take Chemistry the second block. We'll see).

So there you have it. A 12 credit summer. There is really no rest for the wicked I guess, because I am going to only get a week or two of a break before summer starts up. Ugh. But I know it'll be worth it. Now I just need to get through this semester. (Microbio is enjoyable. I really like it but the tests are something else... I've never seen tests like these).

My Biking Stats

So, I was looking at my biking stats, (that I keep track on dailymile.com), and noticed something cool. I've gone around the planet .1 times, or 10% around the planet. That is kinda cool. So, it will only take me, biking at the same rate, nine more years to go around the globe. Haha... well, still, I think it is pretty cool and thought I would share that along will all of my other fun stats they give you. These stats are from sometime in the beginning of July to now.

In other news, I have not even started my March goal, and it is unlikely that I am going to finish it. Hmmm. It seems that I am a lot better at goals that deal with health, while reading goals, and such are better for long term goals. So I'm going to rethink my goal and come up with ones dealing with health or something. We'll see.

Also, Lesa and I are trying to go more organic in what we eat. We've been shopping at Good Earth when we can and are getting into drinking green smoothies, eating a lot more produce and working out 2-3 times a week. Feels good.

Science: What's it up to?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook