On the "Spiritual Left" and Science

[lhynard]

I read an interesting article the other day in one of my science magazines. I am used to reading countless articles about how horrible "right wing" Christians are to science and how they must be stopped at any cost. It is pretty scary reading the vehemence with which these scientists write, and I am getting sick of it. (Now, while I think that most

Comments

[triphicus]

But at the same time, God created man to be a "shepherd" over the Garden of Eden. Thus, the first task given us by God was to take care of his creation; after the Fall occured, God did not abolish mankind's responsiblity to creation, but rather seemed to intensify it by stating that we would have to work and toil on the land. Volcanoes might be bad for the environment, but they by no means erupt every single day. We need look no further than the gaping hole over Antarctica to observe the terrible extent to which the effect of human* carelessness/thoughtlessness has had on God's good world. (God also never said that creation was no longer "good" after the Fall.)

*The Ozone Layer, after all, was just fine for the millions of years before human beings came onto the earth, and we both know that a great portion of earth's landscape was caused by a much higher level of volcanic activity than that which is now taking place. Remember, volcanic activity is natural and in the will of God, actually conducive to making the world a liveable place. Human pollutants, on the other hand, are alien to the world and are therefore detrimental to its well-being. That isn't to say that humans could somehow destroy the world, since the world and its ability to regenerate is much stronger and more powerful than we could ever hope to be, but we can definitely contribute to it being a terrible place to live for future generations.

[lhynard]

I think you are adding to what I've actually stated. I agree strongly that man is to be a shepherd of God's creation and that that responsibility has in no way gone away since the Fall. Certainly, human carelessness has caused much damage to our environment.

Actually, I see the search for new drugs, genetically engineered crops, and animal experiments -- if done properly of course -- fulfilling of God's call to us to be stewards. The fact of the matter is that many species would have gone completely extinct "naturally" had humans not intervened for good. Without pest control, there would be more insect plagues, etc. There is no excuse, however, for things such as pollution, hunting animals for sport, or bulldozing forests to make money.

As for the ozone layer, we really have no idea at all what it was like before humans came on the scene. Science has not yet invented time machines. All we know is that it has gotten worse in recent history, and that certain chemicals -- on paper -- react to lessen it. We do not know why the hole is getting bigger or whether this will continue or end.

As for volcanic activity being natural and the will of God -- we get into that confusing area of God's will, where He created something and then seemingly allowed the Fall to change that. According to the apostle Paul, the whole earth is in a state of decay and is groaning because of the Fall. So we cannot really say, since God has not directly revealed it to us, whether volcanoes are a part of God's original intent for the world or no. Does God work for our good in everything? Yes, of course. Our loving God is powerful enough that even disasters can result in good for some people. But that does not make the disasters themselves good. We see benefits from volcanic activity, yes, but there are also bad results of volcanic activity.

Nothing material is "alien" to this world. Human pollutants are made from the same chemicals as nonhuman pollutants. There are countless marine creatures that generate as many types of CFCs or more than humans. The human ones are different (sometimes) in structure, but in reactivity, they are the same. As shepherds of this earth, we should never be dumping something into our atmosphere that is detrimental. We are held responsible for our actions; marine fungi are not, however. Poluution is bad because we can choose to not pollute, not because it is human or alien to the earth.

[triphicus]

I know that you weren't trying to argue the benefits of human waste, but I was just taking issue with your statement that volcanoes are worse than human pollution. I see your point that pollution is made up of the same chemical compounds that can be found, in one form or another, on the periodic table. But at the same time, many of the elements are not meant to be linked to one another (e.g. halocarbons). Even when looking at such travesty's as the nuclear bomb, one can see that human beings have almost dug their own grave with the extreme extent to which they have taken science. Yes, we have the ability, since we are created by God to share the same faculties of reasoning and therefore ability to create (on a lesser level) as he has. At the same time though, what separates us from the other beasts is a self-awareness, and therefore a sense of responsibility, to ourselves and the world around us.

In any case, in response to your comment about the ozone--what we can know is that the hole did not exist before the invention of halocarbons, and it is unlikely that any hole existed before that was somehow healed (though I suppose it could be possible--but I don't like to deal in speculation).

In response to your comment about volcanoes, whether or not they will or in the original will of God for creation, when he created this world he knew the natural path that it would take, even after the fall. In any case, even if I grant that volcanoes are terrible and evil, the destruction they wreak on the enviroment is a mere percentage of that caused by man-made pollutants (in the sense of creating chemicals through the linking of elements that wouldn't otherwise be linked, or at least not to such a large extent). Take, for example, the amount of chlorine in the stratosphere. Volcanoes cause around 3%, Methyl chloride about 15%, while the remaining 82% comes from man-made sources (which are mostly chlorofluorocarbons).

[lhynard]

But at the same time, many of the elements are not meant to be linked to one another (e.g. halocarbons).
This is simply not true. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of CFCs made by marine creatures. (This article from a science magazine confirms this: http://www.c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html) I have seen many presentations on the topic, being in biochemistry. And not just CFCs, there are biological creatures that make plastics naturally as well.

We really know very little about the ozone layer and how it functions. And the theories on it are changing constantly.

Where did you get your statistics on percentages of chlorine? Because I have seen very different figures.

In any case, regardless of the particular issue of the ozone layer, and regardless of whether natural disasters or man is more damaging to the environment, I agree with you that we have responsiblity to shepherd our planet.

[triphicus]

I meant to modify my first statement with that which I modified the second--that such combinations are not created to such a large extent in nature, and are therefore not as detrimental to the environment. (However, if I am not mistaken, there is nothing in nature which produces any chemical compound in the form of aerosol propellants, which caused the greatest harm of all to the ozone.) I guess that my point is that the earth is created to withstand a certain amount of pollution, but once it reaches the proportions that humans have inflicted upon it, severe damage is done.

Regarding my statistics, those are just the (general) percentages that I have always heard/read cited. Here are links to some citations from a quick google search:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/cfc.html
http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/ozone/info/stratosphere/myths/volcano.html
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/ozone.html

Anyway, if you feel that these statistics are wrong, I would be interested to hear your take on it (being the science man that you are), as well as the sources from which you gleaned your information.

(Finally, here is an interesting article that I came across which argues that volcanoes would be helpful to the ozone were it not for human pollutants)
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/volcano.html

lol, I am glad that we agree that we have a responsiblity to shepherd the planet :) That is what is most important after all.

(and here is an interesting article that I came across which argues that volcanoes would be helpful to the ozone were it not for human pollutants)
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/volcano.html

[lhynard]

Thank you very much for the links.

As a bioorganic chemist, I do not know much about meteorology or atmospheric chemistry, but I do know a fair amount about biosynthesis of CFCs, which was why I so strongly argued that they are not all artificial -- which Wikipedia also completely falsely reported (no surprise there).

(I don't have much knowledge of aerosols; you may be right there.)

But I do not have any statistics of my own. The area has become extremely political and I hate politics. But I also have issues with the science involved not being empirical enough. Basically, I doubt any figures from either side. I think we are arrogant to think we have any clue what his going on, because there are too many variables. The experiments I have taken the time to read are based on countless assumptions and computer models.

The volcano link you give is a good example of one of the problems with this kind of science. Just because volcanos spit out more greenhouse gases than man still is not a guarentee that man does less damage than nature, because the type of greenhouse gases emitted by the volcanos may be less dangerous than the smaller amount but more potent ones emitted by man.

(Still, I think that volcanos are not "good".)

I'm not trying to argue here that the environment is fine here. If I had to guess, I would say that the environment is in much better shape than the environmentalists tell us and much worse shape than the non-evironmentalists tell us. Such is usually the way of reality.