Home » Intelligent Design » “Freeze” climate or care for children: Materialism vs ID

“Freeze” climate or care for children: Materialism vs ID

How should we spend on malnutrition compared to stabilizing global warming? Environmentalism vs common compassion come to opposite conclusions. Materialism versus intelligent causation worldviews strike again: —————–
May 30, 2008 ˜Forget Climate Change, We Should Spend on Nutrition; Mark Henderson, Science Editor, Copenhagen, Times Online

Malnutrition should be the world’s major priority for aid and development, a panel of eight leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, declared yesterday. The provision of supplements of vitamin A and zinc to children in developing countries, to prevent avoidable deficiencies that affect hundreds of millions of children, is the most cost-effective way of making the world a better place, the Copenhagen Consensus initiative has found.

Copenhagen Consensus: the panel’s verdict
1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition
2 The Doha development agenda Trade
3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition
4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases . . .

29 R&D and mitigation Global Warming
30 Mitigation only Global Warming

{DLH PS Apologies to DaveScott for duplicate posting. See:
Times: Forget Climate Change}

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to “Freeze” climate or care for children: Materialism vs ID

  1. Where’s the “materialism vs intelligent causation” issue here?

  2. At last people are starting to realize that the biggest problem in society isn’t green house gases.

  3. duncan at 1
    Consider the two worldviews relative to the ranking of tasks. A human focused world view reflective of intelligent causation is ranking the needs of the children and the poor at the top and global warming mitigation at the bottom. Environmentalism which often “worships” nature with a materialistic emphasis considers anthropogenic “global warming” as “pollutant” rather than as “fertilizer”. It is trying to “freeze” climate change and preserve the status quo rather than recognizing the much larger natural climate drivers of which the sun and oceans are among the strongest drivers.

  4. DLH – thanks for your response.

    Do you mean “whatever happens to the world happens because the intelligent designer wants it to”?

Leave a Reply