Evolution and Extinction
February 14, 2010
February 14, 2010
Rev. Susan E. Gilbert Zencka
Frame Memorial Presbyterian Church
Texts: 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2; Luke 9:28-36
We hear a lot about information overload these days, and so I was particularly impressed by something I heard yesterday at a Presbytery meeting. The Presbytery’s Associate Executive told us that, quoting Clay Shirky, “There has been information overload since the invention of the Gutenberg press. By 1500, there was more published than anyone could read in a lifetime.” So the information overload problem is not new. Nor is it, Shirky says, the real problem. The real problem is “filter failure” – the failure of systems to screen what information comes before us. Two examples of filters show what he’s talking about – publishers filter information because they don’t publish everything. They make decisions about what to publish so that we aren’t inundated with everything that gets written. However, as the internet has lowered the cost barriers to publishing information, publishers no longer are effectively performing that function, so another example of a filter is found on the internet – the spam filter on our email. It screens emails coming into our inbox so that we don’t have to individually sort all the mail that comes to us.
But there is a more critical problem and that is our ability to assess information. This is not a new problem either. Indeed, both our readings today deal, at least somewhat, with this problem.
In Luke’s account of the Transfiguration, we are faced with a nearly unbelievable scene: Jesus, shining with the glory of God, and conversing with Moses and Elijah. Moses and Elijah represent two streams of knowledge: the Law and the Prophets. Moses represents the Law – the instructions from God about how to live day-to-day. Elijah represents the Prophets – the Word of God that challenges power structures in society, and the complacencies into which we all too easily slip. The prophets describe how life really is, in the face of life in the world. But the truth the prophets describe is not only about right understanding – it is about an understanding that will lead to faithful action. Biblical truth is rarely about its own sake – it is about how the way we see the world leads us to live in the world. In the Bible, being open to new information and developing a faithful ability to assess information is essential to being able to noticing what God is doing and being willing to be part of God’s work in the world. It’s as much a heart problem as a head problem.
In our day, there are many who describe life as it really is – some using the language of theology, others using the language of journalism, others using the visual language of art, or musical language, and still others using the language of science: biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine….all helping us to see the world. And just as in Biblical times, how we see the world is foundational to how we live in the world – so seeking understanding is important. Being able to assess information is still part of living faithfully.
As weseek understanding, it is critically important to be able to look at the evidence before us. For example, the refusal of some religious folks to accept the evidence for evolution shows an unwillingness to let new information and experiences change our thinking – something that repeatedly happened in the Bible, and was, in the Bible, always a sign of people who were unwilling to hear and understand what God was doing in the world. Paul, in the passage from the letter to the Corinthians, is suggesting that e people have closed their minds, and refused to see what is before them: people who are remaining so loyal to Moses that they are unwilling to see and understand what Jesus has done.
Of course, the refusal to consider the evidence for evolution represents an anti-scientific view that also doesn’t really have confidence in God as the origin of all life – if we really believe in God as the origin of all life, we would see the study of life as a way to learn more about God and God’s work, to grasp the reality of God’s complexity and goodness. A frame of mind that is not guided by evidence is not only an anti-scientific view of life, but a view of life that is not open to God’s activity in the world today.
For another example of why it’s important to recognize reality, we only have to go back to the 20th century before the outbreak of the Second World War. As news began to emerge about the horrors taking place under the Nazis, many did not want to believe that it was as bad as it was. It was important to recognize the truth in order to mobilize the world to stop the evils of Hitler and his plan. Being unable to engage the evidence of the holocaust was a failure to assess information responsibly; and was led to a failure in action, a failure to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is a wonderful example of why open-mindedness is essential to faithfulness. It was an example of filter failure as well, however, because the news media often buried the information about Hitler’s atrocities in small stories back in the middle pages of the paper.
Climate change is such an issue in our day. It’s an issue where we need to look at the evidence, assess how filter failure might be at work, and learn how to assess information. For example, the development of the fairness doctrine years ago related to news media has lead to an assumption that there are always two, balanced sides of every issue. But, in fact, there are not always equal amounts of evidence on each side of an issue. Related to climate change, virtually all of the peer-reviewed responsible science supports the understanding of global climate change caused by humans, which is leading to catastrophic results. It’s not a matter of opinion. There are some small studies commissioned by energy companies, but none in scholarly peer-reviewed scientific journals that contradict the model of global climate change.
The science around global climate change is neither new nor disputed . In 1827, Joseph Fourier identified the greenhouse effect. In 1861, John Tyndell discovered that CO2 and water were largely responsible for greenhouse effect. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius recognized the dominant role of CO2 and predicted that burning fossil fuels would lead to warming of the world. In 1912, Giacomo Ciamician predicted in a Science magazine article that eventually scientists would develop processes of producing energy that would rely on and mimic biological processes.
In order to understand how filter failure has contributed to our inability to assess information, let’s look at the relationship between the scientific literature and the news coverage of climate change. A study in 2006 of 928 articles on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific journals showed that none cast doubt on the science around global warming. However, over the same period, 53% of articles in the popular press expressed the view that there were two sides to the issue. This is an example of filter failure because the news media did not responsibly filter the information – they continually failed to report the consensus that exists in the scientific literature. As Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief of Science magazine said, “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this issue [climate change] is rare in science.” And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that received the Nobel Prize for its work did not only review these 928 articles – it reviewed over 4,000 climate studies. There simply isn’t any responsible science undermining the science of global climate change – the only debate left in the scientific community is how fast it is happening, not whether it is happening.
Without the information being fairly reported, who wouldn’t rather believe that global climate change isn’t proven? But in fact, not only has it been thoroughly proven, but the evidence that is coming in recent years suggests that the problem is more acute than had been thought. As recently as two years ago, it was being estimated that the polar sea ice would be gone by 2030, but recent evidence has shown that the model failed to understand some reinforcing patterns that would develop as the ice continued to melt. This week, I read that the polar sea ice may be entirely melted by 2012 or 2013. We’re losing time to respond to this crisis, even as we are failing to develop the will to respond. Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reports that in the green-conscious town of Boulder, Colorado even climate advocates are finding it difficult to make lifestyle changes.
This last fact shouldn’t surprise us – the problem of not being able to behave as we know we ought to is the oldest problem in the Bible. And it is a problem that each of us is thoroughly familiar with. Anyone who has lost their temper or failed on a diet or exercise program knows this problem. It’s the problem that classic theological language calls sin, although modern Americans don’t much like that word. It’s a matter of our hearts: taking to heart the things that we know, and acting on them.
I don’t have time this morning to lay out more information about global warming in order to convince you of how very important it is. I don’t have time to explain why the snowstorms in the east are not a refutation of climate science but a fulfillment of the predictions made by science of climate change. I don’t have time to refute the false scandal called Climate Gate and show you that the few quotes were isolated instances pulled out of context and were culled from 15 years of correspondence, and which, although they made a couple of the scientists look bad, did nothing to disprove the science. We don’t have time this morning to go into all of the information, but it is not an overstatement to say it is the most significant moral crisis we are facing – for the continued ability of human, animal and plant life to exist on earth is at stake.
For those of you who don’t believe that the scientific case has been made, let me offer two other ways of looking at this. When I was in graduate school for my MBA, we had to take a class that looked at different models for making decisions. One of the models I found most interesting was the one that assumed you make the wrong decision. The idea is that you look at two possible decisions, assume you make the wrong decision, and then assess the potential risks in that error. After all, we don’t always make the right decision, so it’s not enough to look at the possible benefits. Let’s assume we do this wrong, and see how that plays out. First, let’s assume that the science of global climate change is wrong, but we behave as if it is right – what are the costs?? Significant lifestyle changes that many of us don’t welcome, slower economic growth, perhaps, although developing more green energy technologies might still be the best economic model. It may, by the way, also be better for American national security to develop energy technology that does not depend on trade relationships. So, the costs of making the wrong decision if we behave as though global climate change is a reality but it turns out not to be may not be fun, but are not that serious. What about the other wrong choice? What if we behave as if global climate change isn’t a reality, but it turns out that it’s true? That wrong choice could be catastrophic for animal and human life, and by the way, that choice would early on have particularly devastating impact on those people who are already impacted by poverty. According to this decision model, then, the only prudent course is to take the global climate change forecasts seriously, and change our behavior.
Another way to look at it, besides a scientific model or a business model is as a theological model. The way of life that leads to global climate change is a way of life that is oriented around materialistic gains – more, better, faster... Faster living, more stuff, bigger vehicles. More bigger faster is not consistent with the biblical model of centering our lives in relationships with God and other people that embody justice, peace and putting God first rather than getting more things, working more hours, and spending less time serving God.
Environmental issues are faith issues – they are issues of stewardship of the earth, and a willingness to engage the science of the world that God has made. Environmentalism was an issue as far back as biblical times – we have always struggled to live within limits, and the prophet Isaiah even talked about the issue of pollution.
Being willing to seek the truth is an act of faithfulness – and understanding should always lead to faithful action. Communities of faith have led some of the most significant moral campaigns of the past centuries: the work to abolish slavery, to establish child labor laws, civil rights, and justice issues of voting fairness. Progressive faith communities continue to work for fairness in issues of sexual equality and openness on sexual orientation issues. People of faith feed the hungry, and send aid to disaster victims. We need to be equally committed to preventing global climate crisis and undertaking the changes in our own lives – changes that are difficult – because as people of faith we need to be able to face the truth, take the truth to heart and to care for God’s good earth. Let us be faithful, to God, to good science, and to the earth. Amen.
Rev. Susan E. Gilbert Zencka
Frame Memorial Presbyterian Church
Texts: 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2; Luke 9:28-36
We hear a lot about information overload these days, and so I was particularly impressed by something I heard yesterday at a Presbytery meeting. The Presbytery’s Associate Executive told us that, quoting Clay Shirky, “There has been information overload since the invention of the Gutenberg press. By 1500, there was more published than anyone could read in a lifetime.” So the information overload problem is not new. Nor is it, Shirky says, the real problem. The real problem is “filter failure” – the failure of systems to screen what information comes before us. Two examples of filters show what he’s talking about – publishers filter information because they don’t publish everything. They make decisions about what to publish so that we aren’t inundated with everything that gets written. However, as the internet has lowered the cost barriers to publishing information, publishers no longer are effectively performing that function, so another example of a filter is found on the internet – the spam filter on our email. It screens emails coming into our inbox so that we don’t have to individually sort all the mail that comes to us.
But there is a more critical problem and that is our ability to assess information. This is not a new problem either. Indeed, both our readings today deal, at least somewhat, with this problem.
In Luke’s account of the Transfiguration, we are faced with a nearly unbelievable scene: Jesus, shining with the glory of God, and conversing with Moses and Elijah. Moses and Elijah represent two streams of knowledge: the Law and the Prophets. Moses represents the Law – the instructions from God about how to live day-to-day. Elijah represents the Prophets – the Word of God that challenges power structures in society, and the complacencies into which we all too easily slip. The prophets describe how life really is, in the face of life in the world. But the truth the prophets describe is not only about right understanding – it is about an understanding that will lead to faithful action. Biblical truth is rarely about its own sake – it is about how the way we see the world leads us to live in the world. In the Bible, being open to new information and developing a faithful ability to assess information is essential to being able to noticing what God is doing and being willing to be part of God’s work in the world. It’s as much a heart problem as a head problem.
In our day, there are many who describe life as it really is – some using the language of theology, others using the language of journalism, others using the visual language of art, or musical language, and still others using the language of science: biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine….all helping us to see the world. And just as in Biblical times, how we see the world is foundational to how we live in the world – so seeking understanding is important. Being able to assess information is still part of living faithfully.
As weseek understanding, it is critically important to be able to look at the evidence before us. For example, the refusal of some religious folks to accept the evidence for evolution shows an unwillingness to let new information and experiences change our thinking – something that repeatedly happened in the Bible, and was, in the Bible, always a sign of people who were unwilling to hear and understand what God was doing in the world. Paul, in the passage from the letter to the Corinthians, is suggesting that e people have closed their minds, and refused to see what is before them: people who are remaining so loyal to Moses that they are unwilling to see and understand what Jesus has done.
Of course, the refusal to consider the evidence for evolution represents an anti-scientific view that also doesn’t really have confidence in God as the origin of all life – if we really believe in God as the origin of all life, we would see the study of life as a way to learn more about God and God’s work, to grasp the reality of God’s complexity and goodness. A frame of mind that is not guided by evidence is not only an anti-scientific view of life, but a view of life that is not open to God’s activity in the world today.
For another example of why it’s important to recognize reality, we only have to go back to the 20th century before the outbreak of the Second World War. As news began to emerge about the horrors taking place under the Nazis, many did not want to believe that it was as bad as it was. It was important to recognize the truth in order to mobilize the world to stop the evils of Hitler and his plan. Being unable to engage the evidence of the holocaust was a failure to assess information responsibly; and was led to a failure in action, a failure to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is a wonderful example of why open-mindedness is essential to faithfulness. It was an example of filter failure as well, however, because the news media often buried the information about Hitler’s atrocities in small stories back in the middle pages of the paper.
Climate change is such an issue in our day. It’s an issue where we need to look at the evidence, assess how filter failure might be at work, and learn how to assess information. For example, the development of the fairness doctrine years ago related to news media has lead to an assumption that there are always two, balanced sides of every issue. But, in fact, there are not always equal amounts of evidence on each side of an issue. Related to climate change, virtually all of the peer-reviewed responsible science supports the understanding of global climate change caused by humans, which is leading to catastrophic results. It’s not a matter of opinion. There are some small studies commissioned by energy companies, but none in scholarly peer-reviewed scientific journals that contradict the model of global climate change.
The science around global climate change is neither new nor disputed . In 1827, Joseph Fourier identified the greenhouse effect. In 1861, John Tyndell discovered that CO2 and water were largely responsible for greenhouse effect. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius recognized the dominant role of CO2 and predicted that burning fossil fuels would lead to warming of the world. In 1912, Giacomo Ciamician predicted in a Science magazine article that eventually scientists would develop processes of producing energy that would rely on and mimic biological processes.
In order to understand how filter failure has contributed to our inability to assess information, let’s look at the relationship between the scientific literature and the news coverage of climate change. A study in 2006 of 928 articles on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific journals showed that none cast doubt on the science around global warming. However, over the same period, 53% of articles in the popular press expressed the view that there were two sides to the issue. This is an example of filter failure because the news media did not responsibly filter the information – they continually failed to report the consensus that exists in the scientific literature. As Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief of Science magazine said, “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this issue [climate change] is rare in science.” And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that received the Nobel Prize for its work did not only review these 928 articles – it reviewed over 4,000 climate studies. There simply isn’t any responsible science undermining the science of global climate change – the only debate left in the scientific community is how fast it is happening, not whether it is happening.
Without the information being fairly reported, who wouldn’t rather believe that global climate change isn’t proven? But in fact, not only has it been thoroughly proven, but the evidence that is coming in recent years suggests that the problem is more acute than had been thought. As recently as two years ago, it was being estimated that the polar sea ice would be gone by 2030, but recent evidence has shown that the model failed to understand some reinforcing patterns that would develop as the ice continued to melt. This week, I read that the polar sea ice may be entirely melted by 2012 or 2013. We’re losing time to respond to this crisis, even as we are failing to develop the will to respond. Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reports that in the green-conscious town of Boulder, Colorado even climate advocates are finding it difficult to make lifestyle changes.
This last fact shouldn’t surprise us – the problem of not being able to behave as we know we ought to is the oldest problem in the Bible. And it is a problem that each of us is thoroughly familiar with. Anyone who has lost their temper or failed on a diet or exercise program knows this problem. It’s the problem that classic theological language calls sin, although modern Americans don’t much like that word. It’s a matter of our hearts: taking to heart the things that we know, and acting on them.
I don’t have time this morning to lay out more information about global warming in order to convince you of how very important it is. I don’t have time to explain why the snowstorms in the east are not a refutation of climate science but a fulfillment of the predictions made by science of climate change. I don’t have time to refute the false scandal called Climate Gate and show you that the few quotes were isolated instances pulled out of context and were culled from 15 years of correspondence, and which, although they made a couple of the scientists look bad, did nothing to disprove the science. We don’t have time this morning to go into all of the information, but it is not an overstatement to say it is the most significant moral crisis we are facing – for the continued ability of human, animal and plant life to exist on earth is at stake.
For those of you who don’t believe that the scientific case has been made, let me offer two other ways of looking at this. When I was in graduate school for my MBA, we had to take a class that looked at different models for making decisions. One of the models I found most interesting was the one that assumed you make the wrong decision. The idea is that you look at two possible decisions, assume you make the wrong decision, and then assess the potential risks in that error. After all, we don’t always make the right decision, so it’s not enough to look at the possible benefits. Let’s assume we do this wrong, and see how that plays out. First, let’s assume that the science of global climate change is wrong, but we behave as if it is right – what are the costs?? Significant lifestyle changes that many of us don’t welcome, slower economic growth, perhaps, although developing more green energy technologies might still be the best economic model. It may, by the way, also be better for American national security to develop energy technology that does not depend on trade relationships. So, the costs of making the wrong decision if we behave as though global climate change is a reality but it turns out not to be may not be fun, but are not that serious. What about the other wrong choice? What if we behave as if global climate change isn’t a reality, but it turns out that it’s true? That wrong choice could be catastrophic for animal and human life, and by the way, that choice would early on have particularly devastating impact on those people who are already impacted by poverty. According to this decision model, then, the only prudent course is to take the global climate change forecasts seriously, and change our behavior.
Another way to look at it, besides a scientific model or a business model is as a theological model. The way of life that leads to global climate change is a way of life that is oriented around materialistic gains – more, better, faster... Faster living, more stuff, bigger vehicles. More bigger faster is not consistent with the biblical model of centering our lives in relationships with God and other people that embody justice, peace and putting God first rather than getting more things, working more hours, and spending less time serving God.
Environmental issues are faith issues – they are issues of stewardship of the earth, and a willingness to engage the science of the world that God has made. Environmentalism was an issue as far back as biblical times – we have always struggled to live within limits, and the prophet Isaiah even talked about the issue of pollution.
Being willing to seek the truth is an act of faithfulness – and understanding should always lead to faithful action. Communities of faith have led some of the most significant moral campaigns of the past centuries: the work to abolish slavery, to establish child labor laws, civil rights, and justice issues of voting fairness. Progressive faith communities continue to work for fairness in issues of sexual equality and openness on sexual orientation issues. People of faith feed the hungry, and send aid to disaster victims. We need to be equally committed to preventing global climate crisis and undertaking the changes in our own lives – changes that are difficult – because as people of faith we need to be able to face the truth, take the truth to heart and to care for God’s good earth. Let us be faithful, to God, to good science, and to the earth. Amen.