We do not speak of a power in the Cross that is any different from that through which the worlds came into being, [a power] which is eternal and without beginning and which guides creation all the time without any break, in a divine way and beyond the understanding of all, in accordance wit the will of his divinity.

The scientistic neo-paganism which informs the modern ‘evironmental’ movment will fail because it denies the Cross and seeks rather the imposition of its own will in place of God’s will–a receipe for disastor.

George, I totally agree with you. Indeed, “science –true science–is much more circumspect and humble in its pronouncements”.

“Jedi” religion …??

This is sad example (among many) which shows how the media/film industry defiles the mind, culture, religion, everything …

My guess is that the ugly medusa of political correctness has been plaguing our science for quite a long time. Maybe someday will see/understand everything.

Eliot: the declaratory tone. Also that this verbiage could just as easily be applied to the Creator.

Perhaps I just over-reacted. Forgive me. I got nothing against science and I appreciate simple, declarative sentences that explain facts. (Although I would have to add that your caveat that “…a change in the sun’s energy of 0.5%…” leads many [such as myself] to Intelligent Design theory.)

Please understand, I don’t dispute the facts as presented, it’s just that in my sojourn through Science, the prophetic language is inescapable (and often pontifical and insufferable). Science –true science–is much more circumspect and humble in its pronouncements. Contrast this with Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and the extent to which Star Trek and Star Wars have become virtual religions. (In England recently, 290,000 people listed as their religion “Jedi” on the census forms. This made The Force the fourth largest religion in Britain, after Hinduism and ahead of Judaism.

I love to escape into science and look for it to be an oasis of quanta where there is no political agenda. Unfortunately, even in this sphere the ugly medusa of political correctness is making serious headway.

Which sentence/part sounds dogmatic to you?
Let me try to rephrase it.

The Sun is our solar system’s supreme creative and sustaining natural force.

Let’s change it to:
The sun is the source of heat and energy for the earth. Sunlight is a key factor in photosynthesis, a process vital for life on Earth.

It bathes us with warmth and light …

The power output of the sun is estimated to be 4 x 10 ^26 Watts. Out of it only 1600 Watts/m^2 reaches at 93 millions miles (the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This value varies slightly (by no more than 0.1 percent) throughout the year. Due to reflection off the atmosphere, the slant o sun’s rays and day/night succession the average intensity striking the earth is 250 Watts/m^2.

…in ways we still do not fully understand. In its gravitational harmony with the Earth and other planets, it irradiates us with an awesome spectrum amidst a complex play of cycles.

This part can be changed into:

The power density also varies with the 11-year cycle of sunspots. In the 1980s, scientists discovered that the total amount of solar radiation ebbs or rises in synch with the increase or decrease of sunspots during this cycle. During the peak of the cycle, hundreds of dark spots cover the surface of the sun with bright regions giving off extra radiation. During the minimum, the sunspots disappear, causing the sun’s energy to decrease by about 0.1 percent. Furthermore, the energy the sun gives off, and hence the power density on the earth, will keep on changing with time because, as the sun evolves, its total radiation output varies.

Maybe the last sentence is troubling you. The Sun alone does not have the power, or the Sun is not the one who makes decisions. But a change in sun’s energy of .5%, even less, would be catastrophic for us. Certainly, we do not worship the sun, but it is an amazing, astounding thing … if one takes the time to observe (notice) it for a few minutes a day.

This sounds awful dogmatic to me. Dare I say “religious”?

It seems like the global warming fanatics are pushing more and more for people to be charged “Eco-Crimes” for everything. Examples (being fined for not sorting trash, cutting down trees without a permit, etc…)

Would Jesus be charged with an Eco-Crime because he cursed the fig tree and made it wither?

Science needs to stand up. The AGW movement is killing science. It’s very unhealthy in many ways. They are corrupting science for material gain. It’s time for us to take back climate science.

The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. For instance, Stephen Schneider [a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University], says that skeptics sell garbage and that we are playing games with science. He compares it to selling drugs and believes that we are criminals who should go to jail. Guess what? You don’t pull that sort of thing on people who know something about science.

The Sun is our solar system’s supreme creative and sustaining natural force. It bathes us with warmth and light in ways we still do not fully understand. In its gravitational harmony with the Earth and other planets, it irradiates us with an awesome spectrum amidst a complex play of cycles. The Sun alone has the power to determine whether we live and prosper in that warmth or descend into an ice age of almost 100,000 years of lethal cold.

John L. Casey, June 2008
Director, Space and Science Research Center

We are commanded to dress and keep the earth, be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth. The damage we do to the rest of creation is from our sin, it will be healed as our sin is healed.

To look on the environmnet as a separate living entity as the ideolgists tend to do is wrong. As with us, the blood of Jesus Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit is the life. We are to mediate that life.

Do we believe that Christ saved the world and baptized all of creation? If so, why do we (Orthodox Christians) need to save the world through this facade of political ideology?

Just throwing that out there for discussion…

I dont know much about this line of thought, so thats why I am asking.

-FD