My last utterance on this site regarding so-called climate change was quite a while ago. Having perused that post, my opinions haven't changed. I stand by everything I wrote at that time. Interestingly, that post was inspired by an article written by local meteorologist Paul Douglas who made several of what I considered to be unfounded statements about drastic climate changes. Well, another article has come to bear this week, entitled "The New Minnesota Winter?" citing Douglas as its main source, which has similarly raised questions in my mind, both stemming from what he said in the article, and also from new information I've learned in my layman's study of climate science. By all accounts, Paul Douglas is a wonderful, conservative Christian man, and I have no desire to berate him or be uncharitable to his opinions. Nevertheless, I have several thoughts and questions based on his most recent submission to the climate change conversation.
Before I get into my questions (and statements) about climate change, I want to state a couple things about where I'm coming from: 1) I am not a climate scientist, nor do I pretend to fully grasp the mechanics and workings of climate science. The conclusions I draw here could very well be based on ignorance. If you think so, please correct me or show me how I have erred. I would welcome dialogue. 2) I completely and unequivocally reject the label of "climate-denier" or any other such title that asserts that I reject climate science out of pure ignorance, or because I have some sort of stock in the lack of a belief in climate change. I hold no stock or interest in any energy companies that would be negatively impacted by new policy set forth in order to protect the planet. Nor do I have any political reasons to doubt climate change theory. My doubts about climate change theory are, as far as I can tell, based on the evidence (or lack thereof). In fact, I would challenge those who say "the science is clear" when it comes to climate change theory to consider the potential need for a bit more self-awareness about how they evaluate and interpret scientific data. Can we at least agree that the science is, in fact, not clear, and that we can have a dialogue about this? I hope so. If we can't agree on that, then there can be no dialogue. There can be no tolerance (yes, I use that word intentionally).
One of the things I have learned about climate science - actually it's not so much new information to me, but rather that I have learned more about it - is that there are different types of climate data that inform climate change theory. These different types of data, however, do not necessarily agree. For instance, there is surface temperature data, satellite data, ice core data, polar ice cap data, and so on, with several more types of data of which I'm not even aware. The point is that these different types of data each present unique pictures of climate change and how it is allegedly affecting our planet. The difficulty is that these different types of data are difficult - if not impossible - to synthesize. That is, they don't work together very well. To make matters more confusing, many climate change theorists assert that only one type of data does not tell the entire climate change story. For instance, climate change theory cannot stand on surface temperature data alone, as surface temperature data does not necessarily support climate change theory - it must be synthesized with another type of climate data. One of my questions, then, is as follows: how do we know which climate data supports climate change theory and which does not? How do we know which sets of data are appropriate to synthesize and which are not? Is it possible for one set of data to "cancel out" another set of data? Why, or why not? (For instance, does the fact that polar ice has been increasing work as evidence against supposed increases in global surface temperatures?) These are genuine questions that I have, and they potentially expose my ignorance in how climate science "works." If someone could help me figure out these apparent contradictions in my own analysis of the data, I would appreciate it.
One example of this difficulty in interpreting data that supposedly supports climate change theory was demonstrated recently in Leonard DiCaprio's Oscar-acceptance speech. In it, DiCaprio cites surface temperature data as to why climate change is an imminent global threat. But, a careful analysis of the data he cites seems to indicate that no such threat exists - at least based on that data, and when considered in light of other types of climate data (such as satellite data, in this instance). For a moderately thorough analysis of DiCaprio's claims with links to data, read this article. So the question is, who is right? DiCaprio's interpretation of and conclusion from surface temperature data, or the author's interpretation of satellite data? How are the two types of data synthesized? I genuinely would like to know.
Paul Douglas makes similar claims, citing similar evidence, and I honestly just don't see how the evidence he uses can be interpreted in such a way as to make these claims. In the article, Douglas comments that the winter season Minnesota has had in 2015-16 (which has been unseasonably warm and lacking in snow) is, perhaps, the new norm for Minnesota winters. In other words, Douglas asserts that a warm winter like we've just experienced, will be the norm from now on. In order to back this claim, Douglas cites surface temperature data, particularly that Minnesota averages 23 sub-zero nights per winter, but this winter has only seen 10 sub-zero nights. Douglas further asserts that average Twin Cities snowfall is around 54 inches, whereas this winter's snowfall has only been around 30 inches. On March 8, 2014, there was 16 inches of snow on the ground, whereas on March 8, 2016, people were wearing shorts and flip-flops. These shorter, warmer winters will become the new norm, Douglas says. We'll still have the cold snowy winters of old, but they will be much fewer and farther between. Douglas says, "It's not a theory, you don't have to like it, but can we acknowledge it's not your grandfather's weather?"
No. I can't. And the reason I can't is that the evidence Douglas cites does not seem to (to me, at least) at all support his conclusion. In fact, if anything, Twin Cities surface temperature data seems to overwhelmingly support the notion that this weather is exactly identical to my "grandfather's weather."
The Minnesota DNR's website has surface temperature data records that go back to 1872, and snowfall data that goes back to 1884. Just skim the data from both pages and try to form an argument that the winter of 2016 is a statistical aberration. As far as I can see, it can't be done. Here are just a few examples that jumped out to me, but a more in depth analysis of the data shows that these examples are the norm, rather than the exception. For example, the snowfall totals for the years 1887-1893 were: 62.3, 47.2, 14.7, 37.0, 11.1, 32.7, and 59.1 inches, respectively. (Note that this is during an age when all of the alleged causes of climate change didn't even exist, such as automobiles). Look at those totals over seven years - that's amazing! Can you imagine a winter in Minnesnowta with only 11 inches of snow?! Were the Minnesotans in 1890 predicting a "new norm" for Minnesota winters based on that data? Certainly not. Then, why are we?
Want some more-recent evidence? Here are the snowfall totals from 2011-2015: 86.6, 22.3, 67.7, 69.8, and 32.4 inches, respectively. And if all continues as it probably will in 2016, we'll probably end up with 30-34 inches. From what I can tell, this warm, snowless Minnesota winter of 2016 is a lot like my grandfather's winter.
And if you're thinking that I picked the one aberration in the data to support my theory, think again, and analyze the data for yourself. You'll find aberrations like this throughout the whole time that surface temperature data has been recorded. And you'll find similar aberrations in temperature data - not just in snowfall totals. Based on these patterns, why should we conclude that the supposed warming pattern we find ourselves in right now is any different than warming patterns of 100 years ago? I would love to have a conversation about this with someone in the know.
Some will certainly argue in response to my claims that my view is too narrow - that I shouldn't be making assertions based on one type of evidence (surface temperature data), in such a small sample area (the state of Minnesota). OK. I'll agree with that. But then somebody needs to tell Paul Douglas to play by those same rules. If I can't make conclusions about climate change using one data source from a small sample area, then neither can he. The problem is that those rules and limitations don't apply to those who would advocate for climate change theory - they only seem to apply to those of us who haven't drunk this particular batch of kool aid. Why is that? Again, this is a genuine question, and I would love to hear a response.
So there it is, at least in part: based on the way the evidence is interpreted and reported by the media, I just don't see how it proves climate change theory. To be sure, what I've touched on here is only part of the story, but I think my observations here apply to other types of data that supposedly support climate change theory.
One of the points I made in a previous post on climate change is that it is impossible to interpret data and analyze evidence in a vacuum. That is, none of us looks at data completely objectively - we are always being influenced by outside factors that color our interpretation of data. To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest, and I think that's also a part of the friction that is caused by this debate. So then, has this been a warm and snowless winter? Sure. Is it due to climate change? Well, based on the evidence that Paul Douglas likes to cite, no more so than it was in 1968 when we had similarly high temperatures and only half the snow (17.5 inches!) we had this year.
Finally, let me reiterate my desire for an open dialogue on this issue. As I've noted earlier, I am hardly the last word on this topic, nor am I particularly qualified to be commenting on it, as there are many ways in which my analysis could be off, most of which I'm probably not even aware. I am very open to correction and would welcome interaction, either in the comments or by email.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Monday, April 22, 2013
Why I Won't Drink the Climate Change Kool Aid
As I write this, my state sits in the clutches of its third unseasonal April snow storm. At the same time, it is also Earth Day across the country. These two factors seemed to be enough to motivate me to write a post about my thoughts about global warming, climate change, or whatever they're calling it these days. I've written on the topic before, but this will probably be my most thorough explanation of why I just don't buy the hype.
As I reflect on it, I find that the reasons I don't believe that we're doomed to destroy the planet fall into two basic categories: theological reasons, and what I'll call "natural" reasons (more on that in a minute), or basically, some problems I have with the way the science behind the climate change debate is conducted. But first, two basic theological reasons that I don't buy the climate change theory that I'll discuss very briefly:
1. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. In other words, God owns this place, so he gets to say what happens and doesn't happen.
2. Mankind cannot destroy anything without God's permission to do so. The idea that human beings could thwart God's plan for the earth is the height of arrogance. If you wanted to say that God is allowing human beings to destroy the earth, then we can start to have a conversation, but I think that conversation ends pretty quickly (see below). Some theologians, like Tim Challies, don't buy the climate change theory, but argue that human beings have nonetheless failed in their duty to responsibly take dominion of the earth. I don't necessarily agree, but at least we have a place to start.
Now onto some of my "natural" reasons. It should be noted that I am willing to be corrected on any of my conclusions listed below. I am certainly no scientist, but I think I have at least a knowledge of how science works, and this is where most of my doubts about climate change come on the scene. If I am wrong about my thinking on the points below, please feel free to contact me. I'm sure there are many who might charge me with oversimplifying the situation or making unfair generalizations or misunderstanding the way climate science works. That may be, and I'm open to correction. So here they are:
1. All predictions of environmental doomsday scenarios have failed to come to pass. So many people have been declaring the end of the earth due to man-made climate change for the past 40 years, and have been subsequently wrong, that I don't think it's unreasonable to place as much credence in their prognostications as I would in Harold Camping saying the world was going to come to an end in May of 2012.
2. The sample size is too small. Human beings have only been studying weather patterns for about 130 years. In other words, we've only been conducting scientific experiments on the earth and on weather patterns for a comparatively very short period of time. If we go with the generally accepted supposed age of the earth as being 4.54 billion years old (which I don't, but I'll use that number for the sake of this argument), then that means we have been observing the earth and weather patterns for only 0.000000028% of earth's history. Do we really think that that sample size is large enough to make solid conclusions? How in the world do we know that the patterns we are observing today are extraordinary? We don't. We can't. So then, to make up for this little glitch, climate scientists speculate on what they believe weather patterns, average temperatures, and ice core depths of the past were like. But how can they do that with any certainty? I understand how they can hypothesize on what trends of the past were like, but this is not hard science. It is theoretical at best. It's based on what I'll call "historical science" that just can't be proven. In a sense, it seems as though the scientific method has gone by the wayside.
When I was a kid, one of the major subjects of discussion in all of my elementary science classes was that there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to allow the sun to seep in and fry us all. Well, that never happened. And come to think of it, when's the last time you heard anyone talk about a hole in the ozone layer? I think it was some time around sixth grade. Why don't we talk about it anymore? Could it be the science that precipitated the hole-in-the-ozone doomsday scenarios was flawed? We better make sure we know what we're talking about if we go around telling people the sky is falling (pun intended). And before the hole-in-the-ozone hysteria, there were warnings about the coming ice age. Did I miss it? Why didn't that happen? And who is going to apologize for working us up into a frenzy over what science had so clearly (cough) predicted?
In more recent years the acceptable term has been "global warming." But now that term has been put on the shelf in favor of "climate change," because now science doesn't support a warming, but a "change" (note how the word "change" is vague enough to encompass any anomaly - more on that below). We got all worked up about global warming, but apparently that's off the table now.
3. All evidence is analyzed with a bias. No matter what a person is studying, he or she brings to the table a certain set of presuppositions and preunderstandings. This is true of any kind of science. We are all influenced in certain ways that color the way we see evidence and data. In my experience, this is especially true of climate science, if for no other reason than the incredible external pressures climate scientists have placed on them. Therefore, I find their analyzation of evidence and subsequent conclusions to be at least somewhat suspect.
4. All evidence is analyzed with a political agenda. I am wary of scientific conclusions produced by men and women whose means of making a living for themselves is dependent upon their findings supporting a certain conclusion. Peoples' jobs and political careers depend on having climate studies turn out a certain way. Can someone really be objective under such circumstances? I have no evidence of how often this occurs, but I know that it does occur. And just the reality that this happens on even an irregular basis should be cause for concern about the validity of the findings of climate change science. To top it off, the media puts a spin on the findings that will bend them even more toward their own political agenda. Who can we trust? I don't know for sure, but I think it's wise to take climate change reports with a healthy dose of skepticism.
5. All evidence supports the climate change theory. It's interesting to me that no matter what the whether is like, you can find someone who bangs the climate change drum saying that such weather is proof of man-made climate change. That's what Paul Douglas does in this article, one of the goofiest ones I've read on the topic. It was written during the heat wave of the spring of 2012. In it, Douglas says this: "It's 85 in March. What will July bring? It's as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, clicked America's seasons on fast-foward, turning the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10. This isn't even close to being 'normal.'" Well, Mr. Douglas, if memory serves, July of last year was decidedly within the limits of normalcy. It was not the apocalypse you thought it would be. And what about this year? It's the evening of April 22 as I write this and we're expecting 5-9 inches of snow overnight. How do you explain that, considering that one year ago it was the exact opposite? Or how do you explain the winter of 2011 which was exceedingly average?
The way I see Douglas and other climate change theorists explaining it is quite simple: all evidence points to climate change. Why is it so hot? Climate change. Why is it so cold? Climate change. Why is it snowing so much? Climate change. Why have there been so many tornadoes recently? Climate change. Why is there a drought? Climate change. Why are we having this seasonably average weather? Climate change. Why is it that when we have seasonably average weather, no one uses that as evidence against climate change? Climate change is a position that is seemingly supported by all evidence, which again, makes me suspicious. The use of all evidence - regardless of how it seems to support or disprove the hypothesis - seems incredibly dishonest to me.
6. Climate change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What I mean by that is this: if the doomsday scenarios do come to pass, climate change proponents can wave their finger in our faces and say, "Told ya so." but, if those scenarios do not come to pass, "evidence" will either be put forth to support a different scenario, or climate change proponents will pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for saving the world with their dire warnings. They can't lose. Either way, they win. If the world ends, they were right. If the world keeps spinning, they were the heroes that inspired us all to change our ways (even though there is no evidence of such a thing). Ironically enough, this seems to me like a very unscientific place to find oneself, especially when one is constantly trumpeting the virtues of science.
So there you have it.
As I reflect on it, I find that the reasons I don't believe that we're doomed to destroy the planet fall into two basic categories: theological reasons, and what I'll call "natural" reasons (more on that in a minute), or basically, some problems I have with the way the science behind the climate change debate is conducted. But first, two basic theological reasons that I don't buy the climate change theory that I'll discuss very briefly:
1. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. In other words, God owns this place, so he gets to say what happens and doesn't happen.
2. Mankind cannot destroy anything without God's permission to do so. The idea that human beings could thwart God's plan for the earth is the height of arrogance. If you wanted to say that God is allowing human beings to destroy the earth, then we can start to have a conversation, but I think that conversation ends pretty quickly (see below). Some theologians, like Tim Challies, don't buy the climate change theory, but argue that human beings have nonetheless failed in their duty to responsibly take dominion of the earth. I don't necessarily agree, but at least we have a place to start.
Now onto some of my "natural" reasons. It should be noted that I am willing to be corrected on any of my conclusions listed below. I am certainly no scientist, but I think I have at least a knowledge of how science works, and this is where most of my doubts about climate change come on the scene. If I am wrong about my thinking on the points below, please feel free to contact me. I'm sure there are many who might charge me with oversimplifying the situation or making unfair generalizations or misunderstanding the way climate science works. That may be, and I'm open to correction. So here they are:
1. All predictions of environmental doomsday scenarios have failed to come to pass. So many people have been declaring the end of the earth due to man-made climate change for the past 40 years, and have been subsequently wrong, that I don't think it's unreasonable to place as much credence in their prognostications as I would in Harold Camping saying the world was going to come to an end in May of 2012.
2. The sample size is too small. Human beings have only been studying weather patterns for about 130 years. In other words, we've only been conducting scientific experiments on the earth and on weather patterns for a comparatively very short period of time. If we go with the generally accepted supposed age of the earth as being 4.54 billion years old (which I don't, but I'll use that number for the sake of this argument), then that means we have been observing the earth and weather patterns for only 0.000000028% of earth's history. Do we really think that that sample size is large enough to make solid conclusions? How in the world do we know that the patterns we are observing today are extraordinary? We don't. We can't. So then, to make up for this little glitch, climate scientists speculate on what they believe weather patterns, average temperatures, and ice core depths of the past were like. But how can they do that with any certainty? I understand how they can hypothesize on what trends of the past were like, but this is not hard science. It is theoretical at best. It's based on what I'll call "historical science" that just can't be proven. In a sense, it seems as though the scientific method has gone by the wayside.
When I was a kid, one of the major subjects of discussion in all of my elementary science classes was that there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to allow the sun to seep in and fry us all. Well, that never happened. And come to think of it, when's the last time you heard anyone talk about a hole in the ozone layer? I think it was some time around sixth grade. Why don't we talk about it anymore? Could it be the science that precipitated the hole-in-the-ozone doomsday scenarios was flawed? We better make sure we know what we're talking about if we go around telling people the sky is falling (pun intended). And before the hole-in-the-ozone hysteria, there were warnings about the coming ice age. Did I miss it? Why didn't that happen? And who is going to apologize for working us up into a frenzy over what science had so clearly (cough) predicted?
In more recent years the acceptable term has been "global warming." But now that term has been put on the shelf in favor of "climate change," because now science doesn't support a warming, but a "change" (note how the word "change" is vague enough to encompass any anomaly - more on that below). We got all worked up about global warming, but apparently that's off the table now.
3. All evidence is analyzed with a bias. No matter what a person is studying, he or she brings to the table a certain set of presuppositions and preunderstandings. This is true of any kind of science. We are all influenced in certain ways that color the way we see evidence and data. In my experience, this is especially true of climate science, if for no other reason than the incredible external pressures climate scientists have placed on them. Therefore, I find their analyzation of evidence and subsequent conclusions to be at least somewhat suspect.
4. All evidence is analyzed with a political agenda. I am wary of scientific conclusions produced by men and women whose means of making a living for themselves is dependent upon their findings supporting a certain conclusion. Peoples' jobs and political careers depend on having climate studies turn out a certain way. Can someone really be objective under such circumstances? I have no evidence of how often this occurs, but I know that it does occur. And just the reality that this happens on even an irregular basis should be cause for concern about the validity of the findings of climate change science. To top it off, the media puts a spin on the findings that will bend them even more toward their own political agenda. Who can we trust? I don't know for sure, but I think it's wise to take climate change reports with a healthy dose of skepticism.
5. All evidence supports the climate change theory. It's interesting to me that no matter what the whether is like, you can find someone who bangs the climate change drum saying that such weather is proof of man-made climate change. That's what Paul Douglas does in this article, one of the goofiest ones I've read on the topic. It was written during the heat wave of the spring of 2012. In it, Douglas says this: "It's 85 in March. What will July bring? It's as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, clicked America's seasons on fast-foward, turning the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10. This isn't even close to being 'normal.'" Well, Mr. Douglas, if memory serves, July of last year was decidedly within the limits of normalcy. It was not the apocalypse you thought it would be. And what about this year? It's the evening of April 22 as I write this and we're expecting 5-9 inches of snow overnight. How do you explain that, considering that one year ago it was the exact opposite? Or how do you explain the winter of 2011 which was exceedingly average?
The way I see Douglas and other climate change theorists explaining it is quite simple: all evidence points to climate change. Why is it so hot? Climate change. Why is it so cold? Climate change. Why is it snowing so much? Climate change. Why have there been so many tornadoes recently? Climate change. Why is there a drought? Climate change. Why are we having this seasonably average weather? Climate change. Why is it that when we have seasonably average weather, no one uses that as evidence against climate change? Climate change is a position that is seemingly supported by all evidence, which again, makes me suspicious. The use of all evidence - regardless of how it seems to support or disprove the hypothesis - seems incredibly dishonest to me.
6. Climate change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What I mean by that is this: if the doomsday scenarios do come to pass, climate change proponents can wave their finger in our faces and say, "Told ya so." but, if those scenarios do not come to pass, "evidence" will either be put forth to support a different scenario, or climate change proponents will pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for saving the world with their dire warnings. They can't lose. Either way, they win. If the world ends, they were right. If the world keeps spinning, they were the heroes that inspired us all to change our ways (even though there is no evidence of such a thing). Ironically enough, this seems to me like a very unscientific place to find oneself, especially when one is constantly trumpeting the virtues of science.
So there you have it.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The 10 Plagues of Egypt: More Proof of Global Warming
What? Well, kind of. My sister sent me a copy of this article which describes how a group of scientists believes they have come up with a theory about how the 10 plagues of Egypt could have occurred naturally, and it begins with climate change. Not the climate change that’s touted these days, but rather a regional climate change. I encourage you to read the findings for yourself, but let me simplify it for you. The theory goes like this: the land of Egypt was once very wet and fertile. But after a while, things got very dry, which caused the Nile River to become infected with Burgundy Blood Algae, which gave the river the appearance of having turned to blood. The Blood Algae choked all the frogs out of the river, which then made a mass exodus (pun intended) onto dry land. But of course the frogs couldn’t survive on land, so they starved and died. Dead frogs produced flies and gnats, which spread disease to both humans and livestock. Meanwhile, a volcano roughly 400 miles away erupted, producing lightning, fiery hail, and darkness from the volcanic ash. As for the death of the firstborn, that’s easily explained by a fungus that could have been present in grain supplies. Since firstborn children always got first dibs on the food, they were the first to die. There you go. All ten plagues explained scientifically and wrapped up in a nice little package! And no need for a supernatural being!
But wait a minute. It’s just not that easy to explain away God, which to be sure, is what this study is trying to do. There are, in fact, several problems with this theory (which, remember, is unproven and unprovable). Here are just a few of the ones that I see:
1. The first gripe I have is with the title of the article. It’s ridiculous: “Biblical plagues really happened, say scientists.” Oh thank goodness the scientists have finally told us that we’re not all idiots for thinking the plagues are actual historical events! Where would we be without the scientists?! As if they are the only authority on what actually happens in the world. As though it’s not true until they say it is. Who do they think they are, the history police? Granted, this isn’t a gripe about the theory, but rather about the arrogance of those involved.
2. This article is so full of improvable speculation it’s ridiculous. Basically the only thing they know “for sure” (but even this is not without questions – how could they possibly know for sure without having been there? There’s certainly at least a little guess work going on.) is that the reign of Ramses preceded an extreme dry period in Egypt’s history. This fact alone then leads them to connect the dots about the 10 plagues of Egypt. But there is no way to prove that the Nile River was choked with the Burgundy Blood Algae that the article references. Nor is there any way to prove that said algae led to a massive frog exodus, which in turn led to flies and lice and disease, and so on and so forth. It’s all speculation.
3. Here’s the biggest problem with this whole study: the scientists in question have, in a sense, validated the historical record of the account in Exodus. The Bible says there were ten plagues in Egypt, and they have “confirmed” it (I hesitate to use that word). In other words, they have shown that the biblical account is accurate. The problem for them then becomes, what about the validity of the other parts of the plague narrative? In other words, if they believe that some parts of scripture are true, don’t they then have to believe that other parts are true as well? If not, how do they pick and choose which parts are true and which aren't? Just those that are "provable?" This has significant implications within the plague narrative, and also with scripture as a whole. For example, two times within the plague narrative it is expressly stated that the Hebrew people were exempt from suffering the consequences of particular plagues (flies and the death of livestock). How does science explain that? Don’t forget that science has confirmed the plagues’ place in history. How then does it explain that the Hebrew people were completely unaffected? It can’t. The only explanation for that is a divine one. My point is that if one part of the plague narrative is true, shouldn’t all of it be true? You can see how this becomes sticky when we consider the rest of scripture as a whole. More on that in a minute.
But couldn’t God have used natural means for producing the plagues? I mean, what’s really so bad about God sending Burgundy Blood Algae to the Nile to give it the appearance of blood? Couldn’t God have orchestrated all of those events to work with each other to produce the plagues we read about in Exodus? Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the way God works, for a couple of reasons: 1) that’s not what scripture says (it says the water turned to blood, not water that looked like blood. The appearance of blood wouldn’t have been miraculous – the actual turning of water into blood is pretty astounding!); and 2) it completely misses the point of why God sent the plagues in the first place. What? Didn’t God send the plagues to get Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go? Not primarily. Exodus 7.5 says, “The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.” The purpose of the plagues was to open the eyes of the Egyptians to the reality of God, which would consequently result in the release of the Israelites. Again, in Exodus 8.22: “But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarms of flies shall be there, that you may know that I am the Lord…” What’s God’s purpose in setting apart the Hebrews from the plague of flies? To protect them? Not primarily. The purpose of protecting the Hebrews from the plague of flies was so that the Egyptians could see that God is, and that God’s purposes are always accomplished. The protection of the Israelites was simply God’s means of showing his greatness to all those who were watching.
If you prove that the plagues naturally occurred, you remove from them their purpose: “that you may know that I am the Lord”. But that’s what this whole thing is about. In explaining the plagues through natural means, no one has to “know that I am the Lord.” You see, people hate God by nature, and they love to shake their fists at him. And they certainly don’t want to have to turn from their sins, because they love them. What’s their only option then? Explain God away, and try to show that he has not moved in history so they don’t have to deal with reality. That’s all this is. It’s people who are afraid of the reality of God trying to alleviate their fears. If only they could learn from the plagues what the Egyptians learned from the plagues: “I am the Lord.”
But wait a minute. It’s just not that easy to explain away God, which to be sure, is what this study is trying to do. There are, in fact, several problems with this theory (which, remember, is unproven and unprovable). Here are just a few of the ones that I see:
1. The first gripe I have is with the title of the article. It’s ridiculous: “Biblical plagues really happened, say scientists.” Oh thank goodness the scientists have finally told us that we’re not all idiots for thinking the plagues are actual historical events! Where would we be without the scientists?! As if they are the only authority on what actually happens in the world. As though it’s not true until they say it is. Who do they think they are, the history police? Granted, this isn’t a gripe about the theory, but rather about the arrogance of those involved.
2. This article is so full of improvable speculation it’s ridiculous. Basically the only thing they know “for sure” (but even this is not without questions – how could they possibly know for sure without having been there? There’s certainly at least a little guess work going on.) is that the reign of Ramses preceded an extreme dry period in Egypt’s history. This fact alone then leads them to connect the dots about the 10 plagues of Egypt. But there is no way to prove that the Nile River was choked with the Burgundy Blood Algae that the article references. Nor is there any way to prove that said algae led to a massive frog exodus, which in turn led to flies and lice and disease, and so on and so forth. It’s all speculation.
3. Here’s the biggest problem with this whole study: the scientists in question have, in a sense, validated the historical record of the account in Exodus. The Bible says there were ten plagues in Egypt, and they have “confirmed” it (I hesitate to use that word). In other words, they have shown that the biblical account is accurate. The problem for them then becomes, what about the validity of the other parts of the plague narrative? In other words, if they believe that some parts of scripture are true, don’t they then have to believe that other parts are true as well? If not, how do they pick and choose which parts are true and which aren't? Just those that are "provable?" This has significant implications within the plague narrative, and also with scripture as a whole. For example, two times within the plague narrative it is expressly stated that the Hebrew people were exempt from suffering the consequences of particular plagues (flies and the death of livestock). How does science explain that? Don’t forget that science has confirmed the plagues’ place in history. How then does it explain that the Hebrew people were completely unaffected? It can’t. The only explanation for that is a divine one. My point is that if one part of the plague narrative is true, shouldn’t all of it be true? You can see how this becomes sticky when we consider the rest of scripture as a whole. More on that in a minute.
But couldn’t God have used natural means for producing the plagues? I mean, what’s really so bad about God sending Burgundy Blood Algae to the Nile to give it the appearance of blood? Couldn’t God have orchestrated all of those events to work with each other to produce the plagues we read about in Exodus? Maybe, but I don’t think that’s the way God works, for a couple of reasons: 1) that’s not what scripture says (it says the water turned to blood, not water that looked like blood. The appearance of blood wouldn’t have been miraculous – the actual turning of water into blood is pretty astounding!); and 2) it completely misses the point of why God sent the plagues in the first place. What? Didn’t God send the plagues to get Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go? Not primarily. Exodus 7.5 says, “The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.” The purpose of the plagues was to open the eyes of the Egyptians to the reality of God, which would consequently result in the release of the Israelites. Again, in Exodus 8.22: “But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so that no swarms of flies shall be there, that you may know that I am the Lord…” What’s God’s purpose in setting apart the Hebrews from the plague of flies? To protect them? Not primarily. The purpose of protecting the Hebrews from the plague of flies was so that the Egyptians could see that God is, and that God’s purposes are always accomplished. The protection of the Israelites was simply God’s means of showing his greatness to all those who were watching.
If you prove that the plagues naturally occurred, you remove from them their purpose: “that you may know that I am the Lord”. But that’s what this whole thing is about. In explaining the plagues through natural means, no one has to “know that I am the Lord.” You see, people hate God by nature, and they love to shake their fists at him. And they certainly don’t want to have to turn from their sins, because they love them. What’s their only option then? Explain God away, and try to show that he has not moved in history so they don’t have to deal with reality. That’s all this is. It’s people who are afraid of the reality of God trying to alleviate their fears. If only they could learn from the plagues what the Egyptians learned from the plagues: “I am the Lord.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)