Google Webmaster Tools
 
. . . Regarding Evolution.

When I criticize the Bush and Obama administrations for their spendthrift budget policies, it does not mean that I am anti-government.

When I express discontent with BYU Idaho’s non-shorts policy and BYU Provo's non-beard policy, it does not mean that I am anti BYU.

When I criticize the Utah Jazz for not picking Jimmer, it does not mean that I am anti-Jazz.

When I express discontent with my employer's new immunization policy requiring all healthcare employees to get flu shots, I am not being anti-healthcare.

On the contrary, I support the government, I support BYU, I cheer for the Jazz, and I support my employer.

Finally, when I criticize evolutionists for saying that evolution across life forms and common descent have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not being anti-evolution.  On the contrary, I support macroevolutionary research and evolution education in schools. Furthermore, I am a dye-in-the-wool microevolutionist.

It seems that every time I post an evolutionary article, someone criticizes me for being anti-evolution. Such criticisms are misguided. In science there is no “You are either 100% with us or against us” attitude. This attitude smacks of scientific dogma and is oppressive to critical thinking, a hallmark of science. Science should adopt a tentative stance toward all theories, even those that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because, as history has shown, theories are not perfect.
20 Comments
 
 
Marriage and family are essential to the Plan of Salvation.  The Proclamation on the family issued in 1995 says this much. Hence Latter-day Saints and Christians should pay close attention to efforts to redefine marriage.

Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist, wrote an article exploring the impact of gay marriage on the marriage culture. One thing people on both sides of the marriage debate can agree on is that the surge of gay marriage will change our culture's understanding of marriage. Douthat highlights three possible directions marriage will go.

Some argue that gay marriage will be good for gays in the sense that it will promote stable, monogamous relationships in the gay community. Gay commitment to marriage will, in turn, strengthen marriage as a whole, as being a stable and enduring institution. An author who has written on this subject predicts that same-sex marriages will strengthen “marriage’s standard for committed relationships” across all society.

A somewhat different prediction is that gay marriage will “partially transform marriage from within.” Most noteworthy is the change in marriage sexual mores, away from sexual monogamy toward sanctioned infidelity. One gay activist hopes that same-sex marriage will end up redefining marriage “simply as a pact of mutual love and care” wherein gay and straight married couples are free to negotiate occasional sexual encounters outside the bonds of marriage.

The final prediction is the direst. There are some activists “who hope that gay marriage will knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether.” They want to abolish marriage as a “gold standard” for committed relationships. They hope to achieve this objective by having same-sex couples who have no intent on honoring marriage vows get married. They want to weaken marriage by denigrating it. They don’t want marriage. They want marriage to go away.

With regard to the first prediction, we do not need gay marriage to strengthen the institution of marriage, and I doubt that same-sex marriage would ever accomplish such a thing. If the gay community wants to strengthen marriage it could support traditional marriage as being between a man and woman and stop pushing for a redefinition. To their credit, some gay people are doing this. The traditional concept of marriage isn’t broken, so let’s not try to fix it.

The second prediction is very troublesome. It wants to redefine acceptable sexual relations within the bonds of marriage. Sanctioned infidelity would end up destroying marriage because it would eliminate a core component of marriage, namely sexual commitment to one person. Take out monogamy and marriage becomes little more than a relationship driven by economic and sexual convenience.    

The final prediction involves complete obliteration of marriage. Activists who take this position see marriage as promoting emotional and sexual fidelity that is antithetical to their vision of a free-for-all, sexual anarchy. They cannot live in long term, committed relationships themselves so they want to eliminate anything that promotes fidelity as the norm. They want infidelity and promiscuity to be the norm. The only way to achieve this is goal is to tear down the current norm.

Clearly we are facing forces that will, if they get their way, lead to the disintegration of marriage and the traditional family. Such changes will have dire consequences. The Proclamation warns that “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” I hope this doesn't happen, but it seems that as a society, we are headed in that direction.

10 Comments
 
 
Secular learning is a blessing. Secular knowledge enlightens  minds, enriches lives, and empowers people to accomplish great things. It should come as no surprise that the Lord has said “to be learned is good” (2 Nephi 9:29). At the same time, however, secular learning can be a curse. It can ensnare us by causing us to forget the Lord. This ensnaring potential explains why the Lord added caution to the previous statement. He said, “to be learned is good if one hearkens unto the counsels of God.”

Faith can be weakened by secular learning. At greatest risk are those who study from mechanistic theory books in one hand while letting go of the iron rod with the other. They allow themselves to be carried away by the mist of secularism and eventually abdicate their childhood faith. They wander away from the teachings of the gospel because they do not hearken unto the counsels of God. Ezra Taft Benson acknowledged this problem when He said, “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel.”

This is what happened to Charles Darwin.

You see, Charles was a brilliant naturalist. He greatly advanced our understanding of evolutionary processes that create variety within species. But like so many others, the more he studied evolution, the more he loosened his grip on the iron rod of faith. The study of evolution was not to blame for his faltering faith. On the contrary, his study of evolution was a good thing. His faith faltered because he did not “hearken unto the counsels of God” while studying evolution. Remember: studying evolution = good; not hearkening unto the counsels of God while studying evolution = bad.

Let’s take a closer look at his digression from believer into agnostic in his own words. The following are excerpts from the “Life and Letter of Charles Darwin”.

1. He was once a believer.
During these three years (1836-1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst aboard the Beagle I was quite orthodox [in Christian belief] and remember being laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an…authority on some point of morality.

2. He had a spiritual witness that God lives.
[T]he most unusual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward convictions and feelings which are experienced by most persons…. I was led by such feelings…to the firm conviction of the existence of God.

3. Atheistic influences in evolution worked on him gradually.
But I had gradually come by this time to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than sacred books of the Hindoos…. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become…I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

4. His disbelief grew little by little.
I was unwilling to give up my belief,…but I found it more and more difficult…to invent evidence that would suffice to convince me [to believe in God]. This disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted for a single moment that my conclusion was correct.

5. Natural selection led him away from God.
The old argument from design in nature…which formerly seemed so conclusive, fails now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.

6. He let go of the iron rod.
[Once] I deserved to be called a theist,…[now] I must be content to remain an agnostic.

This post is not a diatribe against science and evolution. Studying science and evolution is cool and highly recommended. The Lord wants us to study scientific theories (see, for example, D&C 88:78). What is neither cool nor recommended is allowing science to displace faith.

Science usually displaces faith when the two disagree. So what should we do when science contradicts fundamental gospel principles? The answer is to recognize that scientific theories are constantly changing and being replaced by better theories; hence science is not perfect. A scientific principle that contradicts a fundamental gospel truth today may be replaced by a scientific principle that is consistent with the gospel tomorrow.

It also helps to remember that our understanding of how the Lord created and governs the natural world is not perfect. The gospel is silent on most natural matters. However, when the Lord comes again He will reveal secrets regarding life, the earth, and the heavens, things currently not revealed in the gospel (D&C 101:32-34). We may be surprised to learn that some of these secrets are consistent with modern theories of science.

(Note: mechanistic refers to scientific theories that explain natural phenomena solely by physical material and physical forces.)
4 Comments
 
 
Have you ever wondered how one day for the Lord could be equal to a thousand years for humankind? You might be surprised to learn that there is a simple scientific explanation.

According to Einstein’s principle of general relativity, time is relative, which is to say that it varies based on situational circumstances. Most scientists before the 20th century believed that time was constant, but Einstein proved otherwise. Einstein’s work showed that time varies based on velocity, energy, and mass (gravity).

Let’s take mass (gravity). According to relativity, as gravity increases, time slows down. Time moves more quickly for someone in a low gravity environment than it does for someone in a high gravity environment. This may explain why time moves more slowly at God’s throne.

The Lord dwells in a place where gravity is high relative to that on earth. We know that His throne is in a star cluster containing many large stars, something which would create massive gravity. Abraham 3:2 reads: “And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it.” The name of the great one nearest to God’s throne is Kolob. Abraham tells us that Kolob “govern[s] all those [worlds] which belong to the same order as that upon which thou [Abraham] standest.”

I think Kolob could be at the center of our galaxy.

For years astronomers were unable to take a clear picture of the center of our galaxy because dust blocked the center from view. That has all changed with infrared astrophotography technology. Below is a recent infrared photograph of the center of our galaxy. You’ll see several star clusters. The one on the bottom right of the picture is the most massive. Astronomers think that it contains a black hole because of its massive gravitational pull. This could be the dwelling place of God.

Does the cluster shown on the bottom right govern our world as Abraham wrote? Yes, in a physical sense the gravitational pull created by this cluster of huge stars (along with gravity from dark matter) holds our galaxy together and keeps the outer rims (where we are) from flying off into intergalactic space.  Would time be slower for someone living in this cluster? Definitely so. The massive gravity in that cluster would slow down time, perhaps to the point where one day equaled a thousand years on earth.

Picture
10 Comments
 
 
Pioneering research on brain functions by the eminent neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield provides scientific evidence for the existence of a spirit.

A few decades ago Dr. Penfield was attempting to identify the source of epileptic seizures by stimulating regions of patients’ brains. His did this by exposing the brain and delivering mild electric currents (shocks) to the conscious patient's surface neocortex. By this process he hoped to identify areas of the brain that triggered epileptic seizures. If the seizure location in a patient could be identified he would consider removing the tissue to prevent future seizures. By repeatedly stimulating brain regions in conscious patients and noting the effects, Penfield was able to construct a remarkably detailed map of localized functions in the brain, a map showing which areas of the brain controlled sensations and movements in the body.

In all his work on searching for epileptic trigger sites, Penfield noticed something very interesting. He noted that he could not locate the mind, the thing that regulates conscious decision making, reasoning, sentience, and agency.

When Penfield carried out his investigations, patients would report all sorts of sensations, memories, and movements, but these were things that happened to the patients. You see, his electrode could not stimulate patients to make a choice, to believe something, or to reason, the very things associated with the human mind.

Does this mean that the human mind was not evident in his research? On the contrary, the human mind was present. It was present in the patients’ reports of what Penfield’s electrode caused them to do and feel. For example, when the electrode caused a patient’s hand to move, the patient often said, “I didn’t do that, you did” (i.e., the patient’s mind reflected on how Penfield made his or her hand move). The patient did not say, “I wanted to move my hand (something which would indicate that Penfield stimulated the mind). Penfield concluded that “The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from the neuronal reflex action [brain].”

When Penfield began his studies of the human brain, he had hoped to discover how the brain causes the mind, something that we are continually reminded of by atheists (i.e., there is no agentic mind/spirit, just brain neuronal activity). However, because no one has been able to find the physical areas of the brain that control the mind, we are left to wonder, where is the mind?

Penfield wrote that “it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal activity in the brain.” Unable to find the mind in the brain, yet ever aware of the presence of the mind during his research, Penfield determined that something else must be causing the mind. And what was that something else? He declared, “What a thrill it [was] to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit!”

7 Comments
 
 
Hi friends. Sorry it has been a while since I last posted. Recently I sold my house, bought a new home, and moved twice. Life has been kind of hectic. Lately I’ve been reflecting on changes in the church (just for fun). Changes 1-9 are non-doctrinal and #10 is doctrinal. (It could be argued that #10 is a policy change. Because it shows up in the D&C as an Official Declaration, I'll call it a doctrinal change.)

Dave’ Top Ten List of LDS Church-Related Changes Over the Last 40 Years

1. The cost of building and operating local churches to be funded solely by tithing and not financial donations from members.

2. Ricks College is no more.

3. Sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and priesthood and relief society combined into a 3 hour Sunday service (no more evening sacrament meetings).

4. A 2-year mission reduced to 18 months and then back to 2 years.

5. Members started cleaning church buildings.

6. Carpeted gymnasiums replace wood floors in new churches and then back to wood floors again. (On a similar note, older churches used to have windows on the classroom doors, then the church went with solid wood doors that were kind of uninviting, and now we are going back to windows on classroom doors – great for parents who want to check up on their kids.)

7. A practice hymn was added immediately following sacrament meeting, and then removed (hallelujah!)

8. BYU Provo allows shorts on campus.

9. Changes to the temple endowment.
 
10. All worthy males allowed to receive the priesthood.

Dave’s Top 3 List of Changes to Come in the Next 40 Years

1. Church shortened to 2 hours. First a 40 minute sacrament meeting with one talk from someone in a ward leadership position, followed by a 40 minute primary and Sunday school block, and then a 40 minute priesthood and relief society block. (Primary leaders and young kids are happy.)

2. BYU Provo allows nicely trimmed beards but BYU Idaho still banning shorts.

3. Members are allowed once again to cook food in church kitchens.

Care to add to the list?
5 Comments
 
 
The apostle Paul prophesied that the Spirit of Truth would be poured out upon the earth in the latter days. This Spirit has moved science forward at an impressive rate. We regularly witness discoveries in medicine, technology, physics, chemistry, and biology. Discoveries in these and other fields of science bring blessings of truth, hope, healing, comfort, and the ability to accomplish things in a manner unfathomable to previous generations.

Yet in our fast paced, high tech world we must not lose sight of the blessings the Lord has already given us. Take herbs, for example. We’ve all heard and read claims that herbs are great for common ailments, but if you are like me, you are skeptical. It would be nice if there was rigorous testing of medicinal herbs, similar to the rigorous testing of pharmaceuticals. The inability to patent a natural substance makes widespread, rigorous testing of herbs unlikely. Whether we like it or not, rigorous testing of medicinal remedies is made possible by financial returns on patentable medicinal substances.

Do herbs have medicinal properties? Yes. How do I know? I have taken a few herbal remedies but cannot point to any particular instance where they were clearly effective; so I have no personal experience to assert that herbs effectively treat ailments. I’ve also perused books on herbal remedies, but the research the authors cite on herbal medicinal properties are scant and lack rigorous clinical control; so there isn’t even an impressive body of research to support the claim that herbs are clearly effective. Well then, how can we be sure that herbs work? Because the Lord said they work.

Consider the following scriptural verses.

1. Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment . . . are made for the benefit and the use of man . . . to strengthen the body (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20).

2. And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food (D&C 42:43).

3. And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate (Alma 46:40).

4. And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man (D&C 89:10). (Note that constitution, as the word is used here, refers to bodily strength and stamina.)

Modern medicine is great, but sometimes I wonder if we are missing out on another area of healing by not researching herbs as rigorously as we research modern therapies. It would be great if companies would aggressively research the efficacy, side effects, and proper dosing of herbs. Because natural remedies are not patentable, there is no financial incentive to conduct such research. Thus we are left in the dark on how and why herbs work.

22 Comments
 
 
Chapter 1

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of scholarly wisdom, it was the age of scholarly foolishness. It was the epoch of unheralded scientific progress, it was the epoch of scientific dogma. It was the season of scientific light, the season of scientific darkness. There was an explanation for the origin of species, including the theory of common descent, and there were those who rejected it. This period was like recent periods in that some of the noisiest scientific authorities insisted on evolution being wholly accepted, for good or for evil, and not being subjected to comparisons from competing theories.

There was a king with an australopithecine jawbone and a queen with a pseudogene identical to a chimp's sitting on the throne of natural science. And there was a lowly scholar with evidence of extremely complex cell systems on the lower throne of intelligent design.

It was the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven. Spiritual revelations had been conceded to humans throughout history that God created mankind. Mr. Darwin had recently attained his two-hundredth birthday, a birthday heralded by the sublime announcement of a half fish and half tetrapod fossil named Tiktaalik discovered in the Canadian tundra. Even though Darwin had been laid to rest over 200 years ago, evolutionists rapped out their message, just as they had done this very year last past. Mere messages in the evolutionary order of events have lately come to the people from a congress of evolutionary scientists, messages which, strange to relate, have proved more important to the human race than any communications yet received through any of the variety of the religious brood.

Intelligent design, less favoured on the whole as to matters scientific than its evolutionary sister, rolled with exceeding smoothness downhill, making arguments for intelligence and advancing it. Under the guidance of her overlords at the National Center for Science Education, evolutionism entertained herself with such “humane” achievements as sentencing ID to have its hands cut off, its work deemed unscientific, and its publications burned because it had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of royal evolutionists which passed by in review. It is likely enough that, rooted in the dark hallways of university natural science departments, there was growing resentment, discussion of when ID was to be put to death. ID was a movement already marked by the National Center for Science Education as unscientific, a movement to be brought low and sawn in two, to be placed into a sack and a knife thrust into it. It is likely enough that in the rough houses adjacent to universities, IDers there were sheltered from the evolutionary dogmatism of that very day, relegated to the pseudoscience mire by their punitive overlords. But those IDers, though they worked unceasingly, worked silently, and the evolutionary establishment did not hear them as they went about with muffled tread. Rather, forasmuch as to entertain any suspicion that they were awake, was to be traitorous.

In science, there was scarcely any mention of the evidence for design, just much evolutionary boasting. Mention of daring predictions of fossil finds, biological homologies, and genetic information, took place in science rooms every night. Meanwhile university scholars rejecting common descent were cautioned not to come out with their views before gaining tenure. The university IDer in the dark was an evolutionist Kool-Aid drinker in the light, but, being once recognised and challenged by his fellow faculty members, was shot out the university doors and forced to go away. University departments are waylaid by evolutionists who wish to shoot ID dead. Not wanting evolution to get shot dead itself by the religious community, and recognizing their failure to demonstrate macroevolutionary processes with certainty, they called on the magnificent potentate, Judge John E. Jones III to stand and rule on their main competitor, Intelligent Design.

Evolutionists in Dover fought battles with the ID, and the majesty of the law fired blistering questions, loaded with lawyer’s tricks and leading questions. Prosecutors snipped off pieces of the bacteria flagellum and argued that it was still functional. Meanwhile, university natural science departments went in search of contraband ID, as evolutionists fired accusations at the IDers, and IDers defended their views against the mob, and nobody outside of the scientific establishment thought any of these occurrences much out of the common way. In the midst of them, evocations of Judge Jones’ ruling, ever worse than useless, was in constant requisition; fueling long rows of accusations of ID as being re-packaged creationism, a mere scientific chimera. They ended the career of a faculty IDer on Saturday who had been taken on Tuesday; now, rejecting ID papers by the dozen, and now burning Signature in the Cell at the door of the National Center for Science Education; to-day, attacking the credentials of anyone who supports ID, and tomorrow preaching that it is not scientific to believe that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. 

All these attacks, and a thousand like them, came to pass in and close upon the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven. And now the evolutionists work unheeded; with the large jaws of scientific and judicial dogma, they carry their appointed dominance with a high hand. Thus in the year two thousand and eleven did they conduct their greatnesses, proposing that myriads of creatures big and small evolved from a common ancestor along Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life that lay before them.
9 Comments
 
 
Recently I watched NOVA’s show on the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design trial. The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania was accused of promoting Intelligent Design instruction in the classroom, a move which, the plaintiffs claimed, violated the separation of church and state First Amendment clause. The show’s producers were decidedly one-sided in that they clearly favored evolution over intelligent design. This did not distract me from seeing beyond the bias. Enough facts are presented to get a good idea of what really happened.

There is so much that can be said about the trial. Nevertheless, I limit my comments to three objective opinions.

1. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, presented a strong case for evolution. It clearly demonstrated that evolution is science and that it belongs in the classroom. Even though I don’t agree with some things Ken Miller says, he is very knowledgeable and was a very strong witness for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also did a good job of examining the ID proponents, in particular Michael Behe, and of revealing the true motive underlying the Dover school boards efforts to get ID into the classroom (# 3 below).

2. The defense, represented by the Thomas-Moore Law Center, screwed up. They did not present an adequate defense of ID. Why not? Because ID heavy hitters from the Discovery Institute did not testify, although they were supposedly asked to do so.  The defense of ID was left to a few scholars and lawyers who could not adequately present and defend ID. Imagine the LDS church being put on trial for being a cult. Rather than sending apostles to defend the LDS faith as being a religion, we send a few knowledgeable lay members to defend the church. This is what the ID movement did. The ID heavy hitters stayed away – a colossal mistake.

3. The federal judge, John Jones, got it right on one count and screwed up on another. I think the judge correctly ruled that the Dover School board was trying to get elements of creationism into the classroom. Doing so violates a 1987 Supreme Court ruling banning creationism in schools. From the NOVA presentation it is fairly evident that some board members were sneaking creationism into schools on the back of ID. I am pleased that the judge put a stop to efforts to promote clandestine creationism.

Unfortunately, however, allowing creationists to advocate for ID led to a mischaracterization of ID as being unscientific. The Discovery Institute should have seen this coming. They should have gotten involved and made sure that ID was not mixed with creationism, that ID was not proven ‘guilty’ by association. They did not. Discovery Institute IDers should have testified and, if necessary, distanced themselves from the actions of the school board members. They did not. They stayed home.

The failure of the Discovery Institute to defend ID led to the judge’s mistaken ruling that ID is not scientific. The judge attempted to settle the question of whether ID is scientific by applying some conveniently prepackaged demarcation criteria. While demarcation criteria like falsification and empirical observation are important, what qualifies as scientific is largely driven by social forces within the scientific community, and these forces change over time. In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler’s astronomical observations led him to hypothesize that the moon caused tidal activity on earth. The scientific community, including the eminent Galileo, rejected this work and claimed it was unscientific. Back then the idea of something afar influencing tides on earth smacked of the occult and spiritualism. However, eventually Isaac Newton’s work on gravity changed the scientific community’s opinion of Kepler’s work – it was scientific.

In 2005 a federal judge had the audacity to rule by judicial fiat that ID is not science. He should have known better. The scientific community decides what is science, not a lawyer in robes.
150 Comments
 
 
Remember the alarm over the hole in the ozone layer? People were concerned, and with good reason. Without ozone in the atmosphere, the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays would cook us ’till we’re medium rare. In 1987 the international community got on board with banning manmade substances deleterious to the ozone such as chlorofluorocarbons used in coolant systems and aerosol spray propellants. Reports have shown that our efforts have had a positive effect. By and large the ozone layer has been recovering.

What about the latest environmental scare - global warming? I don’t deny that the earth has been warming, although I am undecided on what is driving the warming. What, if anything, should be done about the warming?

I am totally onboard with judicious efforts to reduce emissions and take care of our environment. I recycle, plant trees in my yard, conserve energy, and furrow my brow at the sight of thick black smoke billowing out of some dude’s diesel-powered pickup truck. But sometimes doing something for the right reason can create more problems than it solves; this is especially true where environmentalism is concerned. Here are a few examples.

CFLs
Governments are banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of more eco-friendly, energy friendly compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. Yet CFL bulbs contain mercury and must be disposed of in the proper manner. Prediction: If the US government bans the incandescent light bulb, our landfills will become toxic from the mercury contained in these bulbs.

Sulfur
When volcanoes erupt the sulfur they spew into the atmosphere has a slight cooling effect on the earth. The sulfur deflects solar radiation back into space. Some global warming “scholars” think we could put sulfur into the atmosphere to counteract global warming. Prediction: If governments start throwing sulfur into the atmosphere we will see acid rain falling from the sky.

CO2
The US EPA recently listed carbon dioxide as an environmental pollutant subject to regulation. Prediction: The EPA will set up a carbon credit (tax) program for the number of times you exhale in a day. Perhaps in retribution trees and vegetation will start limiting the amount of oxygen they ‘exhale’ in defiance of mankind’s efforts to cut off their supply of CO2.

Plastic bags
There’s a movement afoot to ban those thin plastic bags we get from the store. (Actually, I recycle mine and reuse them as garbage bags in the bathroom, but this is not enough for environmentalists.) Prediction: Thin plastic bags will be replaced with “environmentally friendly” lead-laden, reusable bags from China! Oh. Wait a minute. This prediction has already come true.

While heeding the Lord’s counsel to be wise stewards of our world. I believe this includes avoiding “fixes” that have the potential to create larger problems. 

4 Comments
 
Google Analytics