Climate reactions

Dear Editor,

Just to say how pleased I am to see the interview with Sir John Houghton in the centre-page spread in the April issue of Evangelicals Now. Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

John Emyr
By email

Dear Editor,

Your interview with Sir John Houghton informative, (en April 2022) was highly and it was good to read of the Christian faith of an eminent scientist. However, his comments regarding books and influences were somewhat disturbing. Mention of RSCF (now Christians in Science), Oliver Barclay and Robert Boyd, together with John Polkinghorne and Sam Berry, et al., makes it clear that his commitment was to theistic evolution, with all its consequences. I doubt his illustrious father would have approved of such books.

It needs to be said that in spite of the efforts of many scientists and theologians, evolution cannot be reconciled with the word of God. All attempts to do so founder on the actual text of Scripture, on the theology of the whole Bible, and the historical nature of Genesis. All these matters are dealt with in detail by Philip Bell (Evolution and the Christian Faith, Day One). To quote: ‘True wisdom is not proportional to the number of college degrees people may possess … It is found in those who, although insignificant in this world’s estimation, “fear the Lord” (Ps.111:10, Prov.1:7,9:10) – those who embrace, rather than reject, His word. Theistic evolution is clearly a violation of this principle; it is man’s wisdom pitted against that of his Creator!’ This is not a scientific issue, but a theological one.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Matthews
Bristol

Dear Editor,

Sir John Houghton was a great scientist, but like us all, he didn’t know everything.

As far as global warming is concerned, he didn’t factor into his calculations the irradiance of the Sun when working trying to determine reality through models for the IPCC.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Bazlinton
By email

Dear Editor,

I welcome Professor David J. Tyler’s letter (April en) on climate change.

Christians should not reject alternative views merely because they don’t reflect current trends. Worse still if we reject alternative views simply because they are different from ours, and worst of all if we do this despite knowing that these alternative views are held by fellow Christians. All this, of course, cuts both ways.

I’m not qualified to speak on climate matters scientifically. I accept, and would indeed in some cases insist, that there are Biblically better and Biblically worse ways of treating God’s creation.

At the same time, I am wary of any attempt to create new moral duties that are not clearly grounded in Scripture. When these duties are urgently pressed on us on the grounds that non-compliance will bring catastrophe, my wariness only increases. It is astonishing how apt we humans are to forget that prediction is an extremely risky business. As Christians, our predictions, no less than our moral teaching, ought to have a clear Scriptural basis. Where they do not, if we still make them at all, by all means let us avoid the temptation of doing so with prophetic fervour.

With grateful thanks for all your great and difficult work.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Wheeler
Chorley