1. evolutionblog
  2. Wise Words From Cizik

Wise Words From Cizik

By jrosenhouse on January 17, 2007.

Bashing religion is fun and all, but occasionally a religious public figure does manage to say something sensible. Here's one example, as reported by Keith Olbermann on Monday:

Number one, Rich Cizik, the vice president representing the National Association of Evangelicals, after a meeting with a science group, the faithful and the scientists issuing a joint statement insisting, “We must fight global warming immediately.” Quoting Mr. Cizik, “Whether God created the earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today.”

You know, Mr. Cizik, with that kind of thinking, sir, you are going to engender nothing but understanding, cooperation, good feelings, and progress. How dare you, sir? How dare you?

Now that's a middle ground I can get behind.

Tags
religion

More like this

The Gauntlet is Thrown!
Over at blogfish, Mark Powell has a little challenge for me: Scientists opposed to “framing” science keep asking for an example of what framing science looks like when done well. Here's a very good example in Carl Safina's description of an effort to raise awareness of climate change. I challenge…
Let's Hope There's a Place for Cizik in the Obama Administration or Progressive Movement
Many readers were shocked and disappointed last week with the forced resignation of Rev. Richard Cizik from his position heading up the Washington office of the National Association of Evangelicals. As I wrote just a day before his resignation, Cizik's work on climate change and his unique…
Religion at the AAAS Meeting
Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers (here and here respectively) have taken note of a session at the upcoming AAAS Annual Meeting entitled: Evangelicals, Science, and Policy: Toward a Constructive Engagement. They object to this intrusion of religion into a science meeting. In the comments to their…
Is Richard Cizik America's Top Climate Communicator?
Over at George Mason's Center for Climate Change Communication, they are hosting a poll asking readers to vote for the 2008 Climate Change Communicator of the Year. Among the choices are such notables as Thomas Friedman, Bill McKibbon, John Warner, and Chevron's "Will You Join Us" Campaign. But…

but occasionally a relgiious public figure does not manage to say something sensible.

Presumeably you mean "does manage?"

By argystokes (not verified) on 17 Jan 2007 #permalink

Yes, that's what I meant. The error has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Really? You genuinely meant to say 'relgiious'?

Interesting.

Ducks

What I have to say about R. Cizik's is this: this is an example of the civil, scientific-religious dialogue discussed in C. Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World."

The "backbone" of your point relies on semantical gameplay. Specifically, you and Keith Olbermann utilize the terms "sensible," "progress," and "middle ground" to describe the situation, yet none of you specify how you define these terms. Hence, in not defining or explaining the terminology which you use, you are inherently using sliding definitions to misrepresent your bias as neutrality.

So, really, how do you define "sensible," "progress," and "middle ground"? For instance, are you two applauding Rich Cizik's acceptance of global warming's existence, Rich Cizik's willingness to fight global warming with teamwork, or Rich Cizik's willingness to set aside his Creationist beliefs for the benefit of others?

By LuckyStrike (not verified) on 18 Jan 2007 #permalink