Science and the Bible

[Jedidiah]

A) the fact that God is totally ruled out of the process of assessing and evaluating the natural world -- his creation (albeit I do acknowledge the fact that this is not befitting to the scientific process... and all that)
B) the secular establishment's hostility and even attacks towards groups that do acknowledge God, at least as far as the cause behind the natural processes
C) the fact that this establishment is secular and predominantly non-theist (probably 100% non-Christian), which is the driving force behind (A).

A contrast to (C): Galileo was Christian -- thus God was most likely the driving force behind his scientific discoveries (hence does not fall under the criteria of Romans 1:21) -- whereas today's modern scientific community that endorses ToE is not Christian (hence, it would be difficult to conclude that God is the driving force behind their theories).

A-C doesn't fit the criteria of Romans 1:19-21? If not, then what does?

Okay, then take out my reference to ToE and apply everything else to that question at the bottom of my post #35.

Galileo, who was Christian = the father of science. Modern science, which is predominantly secular = theories like ToE and anthropogenic global warming.

First of all, my entire point with the post that started this was simply that God created the world and scripture points out that His existence can be clearly discerned by looking at the creation. This was my only point. I omitted verse 19 because that referred to something beyond my point.

Mankind has chosen to reject God and focus only on the creation. For many science can fall into this realm. However, God is certainly not ruled out by science. God is simply beyond the possible scope of science. The fact that some, perhaps many, scientists are hostile to Christianity, or Theism in general, is not relevant to science. While they may rule out God with no justification, this is relevant to the people involved, not to science.

True many are really stupid in their attempts to justify rejecting God. An exchange I had with Tassman is a great example of this. He claimed that he rejected God because there was no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I asked what sort of evidence he would look for to test for a being outside of creation. His response - I don't look for evidence because I don't believe in God. Does this mean science is bad, or Tassman is less than intelligent or honest?

Does this answer your question?"

[Adrift]

Yeah you might have further resources to hand if you're a Roman Catholic.

I'm still thinking about potential non-arbitrary models you might have outside of inerrancy, but here's a thought:

We can think of the Bible as telling the narrative of the Christian gospel. But in any narrative, the core of it can remain even if certain details are removed. Working out the central themes, characters, and events in a book is just what we naturally do as a result of reading it and making sense of it. Consider the Harry Potter books. Imagine you had to re-tell the story of all seven books in a short amount of time. You'd have to keep it brief, but you'd also have to keep it from becoming so vague and abstract that it could be nearly any story. For instance, you couldn't just summarise it as “good versus evil” because that's true of many stories, not just Harry Potter. So it would have to keep its distinctive features. Now you'd keep characters like Voldemort and Harry (obviously), but there's a few you could afford to loose. How about Peeves the poltergeist? He doesn't really have all that central a role. As for events, how about ditching the moment when Harry and co. meet Neville's parents in the hospital? As emotionally stirring as that scene is, you could tell Harry's tale without it. Indeed, if you've only seen the films but not read the books then you might be wondering what on earth I'm talking about. Who's Peeves? And what hospital scene?

You're wondering that because somebody's already reduced the story to a more essential re-telling: those responsible for translating the book into film. Peeves was dropped and so was the hospital scene (and those are just two examples). What's very interesting to note as well is that JK Rowling herself was involved in the production of the films and was able to agree that some bits were not essential to a proper re-telling of her story! That is, you still get Harry Potter even if you remove Peeves, and the hospital scene, and more else besides. Surely then, you can get the essential Christian narrative from Scripture even if not all the details are accurate.

I never read the Harry Potter stories, so I'm a bit lost, but I get your point.

Of course, discerning what bits are central and what bits aren't can be tricky. There can be much disagreement over the literary analysis of a story. But just because it isn't an exact science, that doesn't mean it's wholly arbitrary. Understanding the Bible in this way, you can agree that things aren't as simple as they would be with inerrancy, but you aren't left in absolute despair either.

And well... that's the rub though, isn't it? John Shelby Sponge and John Dominic Crossan both label themselves "Christian", but don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Instead they interpret scripture to be offering a moral message of hope and that the spirit of Christ's message should live in the believer's heart, and that should influence those who believe in "Jesus" (which is technically the idea of Jesus more so than the actuality of Jesus) to do good in the world.

So there's one idea. But still, whether or not I have a satisfactory model to hand, the burden of proof is still on the person who makes the claim that if inerrancy is false, then what we can take for the Bible on its own authority is wholly arbitrary. That's a conclusion one has to produce an argument for.

I think one could argue that it just logically follows, and this appears to be true with folks like Crossan and Sponge at least.

[seanD]

First of all, my entire point with the post that started this was simply that God created the world and scripture points out that His existence can be clearly discerned by looking at the creation. This was my only point. I omitted verse 19 because that referred to something beyond my point.

Mankind has chosen to reject God and focus only on the creation. For many science can fall into this realm. However, God is certainly not ruled out by science. God is simply beyond the possible scope of science. The fact that some, perhaps many, scientists are hostile to Christianity, or Theism in general, is not relevant to science. While they may rule out God with no justification, this is relevant to the people involved, not to science.

True many are really stupid in their attempts to justify rejecting God. An exchange I had with Tassman is a great example of this. He claimed that he rejected God because there was no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I asked what sort of evidence he would look for to test for a being outside of creation. His response - I don't look for evidence because I don't believe in God. Does this mean science is bad, or Tassman is less than intelligent or honest?

Does this answer your question?"

In post #16, you complimented rogue06’s post, which was basically stating that we should use modern science as a criterion by which to interpret scripture. So if scripture contradicts modern science, and since modern science is basically infallible, we must assume that our interpretation of scripture is in error. I don’t know if that was what you completely agreed with, but that’s essentially what rogue06’s post was conveying (maybe that's where I'm overstating your view). But after you had conceded rogue06's post, you then further seemed to affirm that view by applying Romans 1:19-20 in response to a post by RB, who pointed out that the Holy Spirit was a factor in our interpretation. What I assume RB meant by that was, though our interpretation of scripture is fallible at times, as is man’s interpretation of the natural world, the Holy Spirit gives the former precedence over the latter. But when you countered that with Romans 1:19-20, you left out an important stipulation that follows in verse 21. IOW, I don’t feel modern science can be properly associated with Romans 1:19-20 because they fail to meet the stipulation of verse 21 (and I explained why in post #35). I don't consider the hostility against theism an individual thing because it's part of the secular establishment as a whole (by establishment I mean the committees, the Universities, the funding department, etc.). There have been individuals that attempt to give credit to God but they are shunned and even attacked by this establishment. Therefore, I disagree with rogue06: modern science should not be used as the criterion by which we should interpret scripture. So I was wondering if your view about rogue06's post had changed when considering post #35 and Romans 1:21 as part of the expression of Romans 1:19-20 that you cited earlier.

[nightbringer]

I never read the Harry Potter stories, so I'm a bit lost, but I get your point.

Ah, there was always the risk of that but I'm glad the point wasn't lost!

And well... that's the rub though, isn't it? John Shelby Sponge and John Dominic Crossan both label themselves "Christian", but don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Instead they interpret scripture to be offering a moral message of hope and that the spirit of Christ's message should live in the believer's heart, and that should influence those who believe in "Jesus" (which is technically the idea of Jesus more so than the actuality of Jesus) to do good in the world.

Sure, but they'd be wrong about that. Much like a person would be wrong if they said that Harry Potter was about the triumph of vegetarianism over neo-Platonism. You get these sames scenarios even with inerrancy. An orthodox Christian and a JW can both believe in inerrancy; they have different views about what Christianity is but one of them is simply wrong about what the Bible does in fact teach.

I think one could argue that it just logically follows, and this appears to be true with folks like Crossan and Sponge at least.

But that's just plainly false.

How does

(A) The Bible contains at least one erroneous affirmation.

directly and of logical necessity entail

(B) You cannot rationally believe any of the Bible's affirmations without independent evidence for a given claim.

?

I get that it can intuitively feel like (A) automatically leads to (B) but that's very different to a logical demonstration. I mean, there are clearly possible worlds in which (A) is true but (B) isn't. There could be a possible world in which the Holy Spirit provides an inner witness not to the truth of Scripture as a whole, but to the truth of it minus one verse, for instance. You need to insert some premises to get from (A) to (B).

[theblueprint_Ni]

Well, in point of fact, that is one of the first possibilities I pursued. But the reality is, the world is not land surounded by the sea over which is a dome impregnated with the star an in which move the sun and moon and above which is a great mass of water. This is what Genesis 1 describes. There is nothing I can do that changes that. And as best I can tell, there is no viable reading of that text that does not stumble over the simple non-reality one of those elements. There must be a move to non-literality of that text to get any kind of mapping to the real structure of the universe. And the only way one can be motivated to pursue such a mapping is to understand first what the actual, factual structure of the Universe is - as is evidenced in part of in the whole by every interpretation of those verses that existed prior to Galileo's discoveries.

Yes, that is the typical liberal position. I don't follow liberal theology.

This statement is simply ignorant. There are two elements here. Yes, Natural Science cannot invoke the miraculous as part of its process, or as part of its conclusion. But that is because Natural science is concerned with understanding the Nature of the creation God has made, its inherent properties and 'powers'. Not because Natural Science is itself anti God or the super natural. The second is that Natural science doesn't concern itself with the miraculous. It has nothing to say about it, except to confirm or deny that potential for a natural explanation for a given event.

I'm not talking about the ideal, Jim, I'm talking about the reality.

No, they were developed to understand the natural world. It is a particular philosophy that concludes the natural world is all there is to understand. But that is ancillary to Science.

Above.

Your application here is simple ignorance. I know that some observers of this thread will accuse me of derailing it if I expound on WHY this is simple ignorance, so I will not pursue fleshing out that observation unless you request it. But when a Christian characterizes the current state of science in this way, the expose not a flawed system, but their own massive ignorance. And they perpetuate the secular myth that Christian faith is necessarily anti-science, anti knowledge, anti truth. IF you are going to try to characterize what is going on spiritually, culturally, scientifically, you MUST take the time to understand what you criticize.

Ignorance is a strong word, Jim. I've chosen not to use it to characterize your views. Evolutionists commonly feel that they need to insult someones intelligence when their opponent remains unconvinced of their unscientific dogmas and naturalistic philosophy.

You are wrong here in several ways. First of all, the Christian church flourished for 350 years before the Bible was ever formally canonized. What is required for the Church to flourish is the Holy Spirit of God active in the hearts and lives of men. The Bible IS God's inspired word, let me make clear this proclamation. And it exists to stabilize and direct us in our faith. But it is not what we worship, nor is it the reason we worship. Christ is the object of our worship, and His Death, Resurrection and Ascension is why we worship. The Bible is NOT the 'ultimate' authority in matters of science. It can't be. That is not its purpose. Much of it is phenomenal writing, observations that simply can't be understood in a scientific way unless first we understand the true nature of what it describes. We don't learn to make computers and how to explore the moon and stars - or even what they in fact are - from the Bible, and we can't subject what we learn about them to the AIG statement of faith.

That's incorrect, Jim. The Bible didn't come into existence at formal councils. It was vital to the early church community. They did not rely on esoteric notions of divine guidance. Those that did quickly fell away into the heresies of old that we discuss in our history classes today. Your minimization of the importance and role of the Scriptures in the early church is consistent with your views of inspiration. Christianity would not exist if it weren't for the Scriptures. There's a reason why God did not rely on the word of mouth and rather spoke through prophets the infallible message of the historic narrative leading to the birth of Christ and culminating at the end of history with His return. The Holy Spirit, despite the claims of fringe Pentecostals, does not work independent of the Scriptures. He works in accordance with them, always pointing back to the Scriptures. Christianity is a historic religion, wholly reliant on the accuracy of historic claims to verify the authenticity of the gospel. Yes, people do get saved through the spoken word, but never do they grow without the milk of the word.

The Bible as God's word, when properly understood, should be consistent with what we know from science. But that is about as far as one can go. The Bible IS the ultimate authority on what it teaches about. Which is the nature of God, the nature of man, and those aspects of God we need to know to be set free from our sinful state and restored to right relationship with Him. In so much as it teaches that God created the universe, it is the ultimate authority. But as to the mechanics of how the process unfolded, that depends on whether God intends to teach that in scripture. All the evidence is that is NOT what God was doing as He inspired that text.

And here's where we fundamentally disagree. Let me amend your statement. Science, as mans device, when properly understood, should be consistent with what we know from the Bible, God's word. I do appreciate the fact that you're being more forthright about your creed as we move forward. Yours is very different from mine.

Yes, critically important. But not necessarily correctly understood in all aspects of the text. As for Spiritual truth, the had Christ right there - we must yield to what they heard from Him. But as to the physical structure of the universe. Look, at best Paul and Luke being educated men may have understood the Earth was a sphere. But there was nothing known at that time that challenged certain traditional views of those texts. And none of Christs statement directly challenged those views either. Primarily because the spiritual truths and physical implications of those truths remain effectively unchanged in light of what we know. But you don't see that - which is part of the problem. But what compounds that problem is you will not listen to the explanations as to why what we know now does not affect the truth of what the Bible teaches, at least why it does not have to and should not.

You're mistaken. Andrew confessed to Peter in John 1:40 that he "found the Messiah". He didn't pop up out of nowhere, they were looking for Him because the Scriptures testified to His coming. In Mark 1, from the very first he makes the connection between Christ and His prophesied coming in Isaiah. Paul says in Romans 16:26 and 1 Cor. 15:3-4, that all was done according to the Scriptures. We know that Jesus was indeed the Messiah by the fulfillment of real prophecy. Prophecy isn't a bonus meant to bolster already existing faith, it's a necessity because it's God's spoken word. Matt. 5:18 and John 19:28, that Jesus was intimately concerned with fulfilling the word of God isn't merely a notion to confirm something to Jewish readers. There was an expectation of His coming because of the Scriptures, and Jesus by no means came independent of them. We know of Jesus today because he was confirmed as actually being the Messiah according to the Scriptures. Until we meet the Lord in heaven or He meets us on earth, the Bible is the anchor of the Christian faith. Until that great day, the Bible is our revelation, which the Spirit uses to illuminate our minds. You will never find a thriving Christian community growing outside of the Bible. They will hang on every verse they can get their hands on.

Your explanations are only satisfying to those with a disposition like yours. I am fundamentally different from you. What you think you know doesn't affect the truth of what you believe the Bible teaches. Your minimalist view of inspiration gives you that liberty I suppose, but I can never join you in that view because its appalling to me. The singularly spiritual value you ascribe to Genesis is of no value to me. Apart from historical truth, it may as well not be part of the canon. The book is senseless without literal truth. I hardly see how its any different than any other religious book unless it sets itself apart by according with actual historical truth.

Btw, I don't mind you calling me bp or whatever. I think I already messed up your screen name earlier so feel free to call me whatever you like.

[Adrift]

Sure, but they'd be wrong about that.

Would they? How would you go about proving to them (or their disciples) the truth of a physical resurrection if you were to grant, as they do, that the Bible is fallible in some of its claims? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just curious how you would go about it.

Much like a person would be wrong if they said that Harry Potter was about the triumph of vegetarianism over neo-Platonism. You get these sames scenarios even with inerrancy. An orthodox Christian and a JW can both believe in inerrancy; they have different views about what Christianity is but one of them is simply wrong about what the Bible does in fact teach.

The distinction seems to me that most orthodox Christian scholars have proven to have a better grasp on the original author's intent, helped along by Biblical criticism, and to some degree probably church tradition. Spong and Crossan have thrown out the tradition, but they're still applying, to varying degrees, good Biblical criticism (well, sometimes they do).

But that's just plainly false.

Ok

How does

(A) The Bible contains at least one erroneous affirmation.

directly and of logical necessity entail

(B) You cannot rationally believe any of the Bible's affirmations without independent evidence for a given claim.

?

I get that it can intuitively feel like (A) automatically leads to (B) but that's very different to a logical demonstration. I mean, there are clearly possible worlds in which (A) is true but (B) isn't. There could be a possible world in which the Holy Spirit provides an inner witness not to the truth of Scripture as a whole, but to the truth of it minus one verse, for instance. You need to insert some premises to get from (A) to (B).

Ah. Maybe intuitively is what I should have said then. But maybe (A) depends on the erroneous affirmation. What if "God exists" is the disputed Biblical claim?

[Kristian Joense]

"Would they? How would you go about proving to them the truth of a physical resurrection if you were to grant, as they do, that the Bible is fallible in some of its claims? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just curious how you would go about it."

Are you talking about Jesus' Resurrection or the general Resurrection?

[nightbringer]

Would they? How would you go about proving to them the truth of a physical resurrection if you were to grant, as they do, that the Bible is fallible in some of its claims? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just curious how you would go about it.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. I'm not sure what the belief in inerrancy has to do with proving to someone that the physical resurrection of Jesus took place. Now if my conversation partner believes in inerrancy themselves then presumably I could potentially move them to the conclusion that Jesus was physically resurrected I if can persuade them that the Bible teaches that. But a John Dominic Crossan, lacking belief in inerrancy, is not that sort of conversation partner. And even the interlocutor who does believe in inerrancy might not accept the physical resurrection of Jesus. There's nothing incoherent about believing that the Bible only affirm true things but that, in fact, the Bible teaches that Christ was spiritually resurrected, not physically. I think such a person would be mistaken in their exegesis, but they wouldn't have any incoherency in their views there.

Now what about the interlocutor who accepts something like the narrative view I sketched earlier. Can they potentially be shown that the physical resurrection of Jesus is central to the narrative of Christianity? Well, sure they can. One would just have to show how the New Testament frequently makes a big deal of it.

The distinction seems to me that most orthodox Christian scholars have proven to have a better grasp on the original author's intent, helped along by Biblical criticism, and to some degree probably church tradition. Spong and Crossan have thrown out the tradition, but they're still applying, to varying degrees, good Biblical criticism (well, sometimes they do).

So, are you claiming that the more conservative a view one has of Scripture, the more likely one is to interpret it correctly?

Ok

Ah. Maybe intuitively is what I should have said then. But maybe (A) depends on the erroneous affirmation. What if "God exists" is the disputed Biblical claim?

Right, if the Bible is wrong about the existence of God then Christianity is doomed. Some errors would be fatal. But not just any error. Btw I'm happy to keep discussing this with you but if you're interested, I've recently done a little series on whether you have to believe all the Bible or none of it on my blog http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.co....-bible-or.html

[Adrift]

"Would they? How would you go about proving to them the truth of a physical resurrection if you were to grant, as they do, that the Bible is fallible in some of its claims? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just curious how you would go about it."

Are you talking about Jesus' Resurrection or the general Resurrection?

I was referring to Jesus' physical resurrection, but technically they don't believe in either, literally that is... If memory serves, they both believe in some sort of flowery language about the resurrection of Jesus in the believers heart, but they mean this metaphorically mostly. And as far as I know they both believe the disciples witnessed something, though that something was just not a literal resurrection.

[Adrift]

I'm not really sure what you're asking.

I guess what I'm pushing at is, if you were to believe that the Bible is fallible in part, how do you distinguish what is and what isn't. Where do you draw the line between "this" part over here is wrong, but "this" part of here is right? You know, I see this conversation played in my mind where the erranist is trying to have a discussion with an out and out skeptic, and the skeptic is like "hey, I don't believe in the Bible. Those stories about Jonah and the whale, Samson, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, Moses' staff turning into a snake, Jesus walking on water... they all sound too fabulous to me." and the errantist replies with something like "well yeah, I agree with you about Jonah, and Samson and the staff/snake thing. They do seem pretty fantastic, but look, there really was an exodus, and Jesus really did walk on water!"

Do you see where I'm going with this? Now I know we're to interpret scripture by its context and genre and what have you, obviously, but for some, it seems like a mere picking and choosing, regardless of context and genre.

There's nothing incoherent about believing that the Bible only affirm true things but that, in fact, the Bible teaches that Christ was spiritually resurrected, not physically. I think such a person would be mistaken in their exegesis, but they wouldn't have any incoherency in their views there.

Ok.

So, are you claiming that the more conservative a view one has of Scripture, the more likely one is to interpret it correctly?

This feels like a setup, but, um... yeah. Why not? Do you feel that a more liberal view of scripture is more likely to be interpreted correctly? It seems to me that a liberal view would strip the Bible of quite a bit of its meat, and you'd end up with something that looks a bit like Jefferson's Bible.

Right, if the Bible is wrong about the existence of God then Christianity is doomed. Some errors would be fatal. But not just any error.

Well who decides?

Btw I'm happy to keep discussing this with you but if you're interested, I've recently done a little series on whether you have to believe all the Bible or none of it on my blog http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.co....-bible-or.html

Ok, I'll check it out. Thank you!

[nightbringer]

I'll do my best to respond to you tomorrow, Adrift. I've probably become a little too tired to give it a decent shot tonight.

[Adrift]

I'll do my best to respond to you tomorrow, Adrift. I've probably become a little too tired to give it a decent shot tonight.

That's cool. I'm not really trying to get into major debate here. Just brainstorming and thinking thoughts and that sort of thing. Have a great rest of the night.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's not what the majority of scientists say about it. According to them, the science is settled -- we are the cause of AGW.

Not from what I've seen, but perhaps you are reading popular science vs more in depth science? The earth used to be far warmer then today and likewise, it used to be far colder. Right now, it's actually quite settled, but it can always go up and down.

Of course, the hysteria and apocalyptic nature of it that was echoing from this same establishment about a decade ago has greatly cooled off a bit due to a series of scandals that were (inadvertently or accidentally) publicized about how they were treating and representing the data. Was that initially a search for truth?

Name something and I bet there will be some sort of hysteria and apocalyptic rantings about it. There is one about Dec of 2012 that is coming up, we had the one with Camping from last year, I remember one back in the 90's with a crazy cult group that said Jupiter was going to explode upon being hit by the rocks that were about to hit it at the time. Does that mean that Mayan historians, Christians, Scientist, etc are dangerous or does it mean that crazy people are everywhere? There's a difference between, "The globe is getting warmer and we'll try to see if there is anything we can do about it." and "The world is going to end!" I know of many scientist that are in the first group, perhaps you can name 10 that are in the second group?

[Jedidiah]

In post #16, you complimented rogue06’s post, which was basically stating that we should use modern science as a criterion by which to interpret scripture. So if scripture contradicts modern science, and since modern science is basically infallible, we must assume that our interpretation of scripture is in error. I don’t know if that was what you completely agreed with, but that’s essentially what rogue06’s post was conveying (maybe that's where I'm overstating your view).

In applauding 06’s post I was applauding the concept revealed in his Tertulian quote, “ ‘Neque deus neque natura mentitur,’ (‘neither God nor nature lie’) meaning that since both nature and scripture came from God, the truths that each reveal when properly read and interpreted can't contradict one another. IOW, one truth can not contradict another.”

I do not see science as infallible at all, but some things are pretty much certain. Where the Bible seems to be teaching that the earth is the center of creation with the rest moving around it, I will use what science reveals to better understand what scripture is saying. There are differences between what I see and what 06 sees, but we agree that all information is useful to understand the Bible. Would you throw out archaeology, or history when they can help make sense of what we might otherwise misunderstand?

But after you had conceded rogue06's post, you then further seemed to affirm that view by applying Romans 1:19-20 in response to a post by RB, who pointed out that the Holy Spirit was a factor in our interpretation. What I assume RB meant by that was, though our interpretation of scripture is fallible at times, as is man’s interpretation of the natural world, the Holy Spirit gives the former precedence over the latter. But when you countered that with Romans 1:19-20, you left out an important stipulation that follows in verse 21. IOW, I don’t feel modern science can be properly associated with Romans 1:19-20 because they fail to meet the stipulation of verse 21 (and I explained why in post #35). I don't consider the hostility against theism an individual thing because it's part of the secular establishment as a whole (by establishment I mean the committees, the Universities, the funding department, etc.). There have been individuals that attempt to give credit to God but they are shunned and even attacked by this establishment. Therefore, I disagree with rogue06: modern science should not be used as the criterion by which we should interpret scripture. So I was wondering if your view about rogue06's post had changed when considering post #35 and Romans 1:21 as part of the expression of Romans 1:19-20 that you cited earlier.

I clearly see a demarkation between science and what you are calling the “secular establishment” of many scientists. I see science as a tool, nothing more. Looking at the world around us to help reveal God’s eternal power and divine nature is science. Do you deny the value of a knife because it can be used for good or evil? Of course not. Science is a tool. I really do not care what “the establishment” may have to say.

[seanD]

Not from what I've seen, but perhaps you are reading popular science vs more in depth science? The earth used to be far warmer then today and likewise, it used to be far colder. Right now, it's actually quite settled, but it can always go up and down.



Name something and I bet there will be some sort of hysteria and apocalyptic rantings about it. There is one about Dec of 2012 that is coming up, we had the one with Camping from last year, I remember one back in the 90's with a crazy cult group that said Jupiter was going to explode upon being hit by the rocks that were about to hit it at the time. Does that mean that Mayan historians, Christians, Scientist, etc are dangerous or does it mean that crazy people are everywhere? There's a difference between, "The globe is getting warmer and we'll try to see if there is anything we can do about it." and "The world is going to end!" I know of many scientist that are in the first group, perhaps you can name 10 that are in the second group?

You got me. I can't come up with 10 specific global warming scientist alarmists.