Global warming vs. evolution?

Question

Of course there are many exceptions.... but.... in general, there are two types of people. Those on the left and those on the right. Those on the left believe humans were created out of natural selection, and that the planet is getting warmer, threatening life. On the right, they believe God created life and the planet is not getting warmer.
So why is it that those who believe in "survival of the fittest" are so concerned about creatures who won't survive due to an increase in heat? Isn't that a contradiction? Forget what the cause of it is, just the reaction.

Answer 1

It's not a contradiction at all. Darwin explains where we came from, not where we're going. As thinking rational beings, we have not merely the capacity to understand the consequences of our actions, but a duty to do so, and to prevent ourselves from causing harm and catastrophe to others. Especially other people, but also other species as well.

Natural selection works by selective death. That doesn't mean one must be pro-death to be a Darwinist. It only means that one must be a realist.

Answer 2

I understand what you're saying and appreciate that it's a generalisation and to comtinue in a similar vein...

'Surviuval of the fittest' is a consequence of natural selection, the global warming experienced in the last 200 years is predominantly un-natural.

The effects of exacerbated global warming can already be seen in nature and this is causing a lot of concern. Hibernation patterns have changed, migratory paths have changed, animals are moving into new territories and away from existing ones, marine ecosystems have been disrupted, breeding seasons and habits have changed, insect infestation is spreading and so too are disease vectors. These aren't predictions, these are observations.

There have already been many changes in nature and all indications are that there will be much greater changes in the future with far reaching consequences. These changes aren't the result of natural events but the result of human activities.

Answer 3

I doubt many people fall into those categories, I'm an example.

I am a conservative, and while I do know the earth is getting warmer I don't believe man is the cause, at the same time I completely agree with the theory of evolution.

Answer 4

Well, there are more ways of looking at it than that...

You could also say that there are two kinds of people:
Those who seek to have a positive impact on the environment and his fellow man, and those who don't.

There are people who believe in evolution AND global warming AND seek to have a positive impact. Now, they may have a net positive impact or they may eventually have a negative impact, it's hard to say. In the end, though, I support their motivation.

There are people who believe in Creationism and a natural explanation of GW who also seek to have a positive impact. They may or may not achieve this, but I also support their motives.

And, of course, there are mixtures of the two types of people that you mentioned. They may also seek to have a positive impact and achieve it with mixed results. I'll support that, too.

Finally, there are those who don't seek to have a positive impact. The selfish and indifferent. This, I can't reconcile with. Unfortunately, for whichever "cause" you champion, be it evolution or creationism, AGW or NGW, you'll find far more of this type than you want.

If there is any side you choose, it should be anything but the latter. For me, the worst I feel about myself is when I allow myself to be selfish or apathetic, but none of us are perfect. That undesirable behavior will always crop up.

There are many ways to approach life and it's problems, and more than one "right" way to do things. We may be surprised to take different paths from our fellow man and find ourselves at the same destination.

Answer 5

Some background, there are two types of people in the world - those who divide people into two types and those who don't. You belong to the first because you have divided the population of the world into two types. The trouble is, your criteria are so selective that it's doubtful that many people fall into either of your two types. What r u thinking? There aren't just two ideas that cover everything.

Answer 6

international warming is a cyclic consequence led to by potential of the lean of the earth in terms of the solar, i think of it is an eighty 5 year cycle as our axis follows a small around path on the poles. Evolution, you comprehend that bleach that kills ninety 9% of all prevalent germs, properly the a million% now has a loose variety of each of the area until eventually now occupied by potential of the different germs. They now multiply, mutate and alter into the hot organic and organic threat. Thats Evolution at artwork. God allowed evolution in basic terms as he/she facilitates all issues to happen on our planet.

Answer 7

Mystine G,

You believe in evolution due to observable scientific facts. To have a fact, you must have researched something that has happened in the past, whether that is one minute ago or one million years ago.

So by your "rational" train of thought, you won't believe in global warming until low level cities are flooded?

Are you a lawyer for a corporation?

Answer 8

There are no contradictions.

We believe in science, although many of us also have faith in a higher power that created man and watches over him today. Those with faith just think the "design" started with a Bang, and used evolution as a tool.

We believe both evolution and global warming are proven facts.

We believe science has shown man is largely responsible for global warming:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

That if we do nothing, it will be very bad for us:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

and that if we work at fixing this, we can reduce the effects of global warming to a point where we can cope with it:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

There are no contradictions in any of that.

3DMs view, below, is a good one.

Answer 9

And then there are the rational people, like me, who understand evolution as a science based upon observable facts, and man-made global warming as a pseudo-science, based upon unobservable associations.

To izzy: What part of "man-made" do you not understand?

A lawyer for a corporation? I wish!