ETS 2012 – “Caring for Creation” Panel Discussion on Global Warming

Free MP3 of the ETS 2012 – “Caring for Creation” Panel Discussion on Global Warming (warning: most of the mp3s on are Federal Vision)

Speaker: Dr. Douglas Moo
Type: Lecture
Organization: ETS National
Price: $3.00 FREE
Download Download Stream Stream

A lively debate from the 64th annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) meeting (November 14th-16, 2012 in Milwaukee, WI). This panel discussion on the theme for this year’s meeting, “Caring for Creation” with plenary speakers Richard Bauckham, E. Calvin Beisner, Douglas Moo, and Russell Moore. An observer noted that, “The panel discussion after Moo’s talk quickly became contentious. E. Calvin Beisner began by arguing that we must not lose the distinction between scientific models and reality . . . Bauckham really turned up the heat when he started his response by saying “Remember Galileo.” He noted that Galileo was initally condemned due to Scripture, but his example shows how trying to “predict from Scripture what science must observe is extremely dangerous.” He said that we need to stop playing “silly games with pseudoscience” [clearly aimed at Beisner’s use of arguments against the consensus Moo and the others argued was in place] and step outside of the Amero-centric view of the world.” (Quoted from JW Wartick).

15 thoughts on “ETS 2012 – “Caring for Creation” Panel Discussion on Global Warming

  1. Hugh

    Why is an “evangelical” (re: the gospel) & “theological” (re: God) society talking about “science” ~ something no one can prove or disprove? Just downright silly, these guys!


      1. Did you ever get a chance to listen to it? I’m about halfway through. Can’t say climate change is a large area of interest for me personally, but it is entertaining to hear Beisner use very simple logic, then hear Bauckham’s disparaging quips against Beisner’s credibility (along with scientists who agree with Beisner). So far Beisner’s responses to Bauckham’s insults have been consistently very polite and gracious.


        1. Yeah, I had a chance to listen. God has certainly blessed Beisner with patience and humility. What you heard here seems to be par for the course for how he is treated almost everywhere he goes.

          Here was one point that stood out to me:

          Bauckham says he heard Beisner was going to be participating and says he was willing to give up his seat for a credible scientist to speak to the issue with authority (as opposed to Beisner).

          Beisner responds: Yes, I agree, it would be good to get scientists up here to speak with expertise. We would want representatives from both sides of the issue (climate change).

          Moo responds: We need to respect the experts in the field. We have to trust the scientists in the field on this. I have to disagree with Beisner on this. His view of scientists is almost like a kind of conspiracy theory. I don’t think that’s the way scientists work and I don’t think that’s fair to scientists who know they are going to be scrutinized in peer reviewed journals from people from all religions, walks of life, cultures all around the world. Their stuff has to stand up to that kind of test. To invite different perspectives on this would be sort of like let’s have a conference on Jesus in which we have equal representation between those who think Jesus existed and those who didn’t think he did. This is where scientists, as I understand them and read them, are. The scientists I trust, who know the field that I don’t know. (receives applause from the audience)

          My initial thought was that this sounds like a Roman Catholic’s appeal to authority to me. They glorify Rome’s supposed authority to determine truth, but in the end they still have to explain why they chose Rome as their authority. The scientists Moo trusts disagree with Beisner, therefore science disagrees with Beisner. Hmmm, how do we determine which ones to trust?

          Secondly, it is amazing how much faith people put in “peer reviewed journals”. That gives me a good idea for a documentary. I think if people really knew what went on in that decision making “peer review” process, their faith would dissolve. Moo honestly thinks the people reviewing these pieces are objective, unbiased individuals without any influence beyond “what does the data say?”


  2. Cal & I mixed it up 2 years ago over his pet project, The Cornwall Alliance.

    I reference the following as exceedingly helpful in these sorts of brouhahas, as evidentialism / empiricism is rife and rotten on both sides. Such may produce some heat, but never light.

    Thank you, Hugh

    Choice headline therefrom: Inversion of Christian Priorities: Political Proclamations Are More Important than Proclaiming the Gospel


        1. Please note the start times for both Bauckham & Beisner’s talks mean that they occupy about 1/2 the total playing time of their respective videos, appr. 50 minutes each.
          [The first halves are ads.]
          Thank you


  3. Moo, Moore, Bauckham & Beisner! Evidentialism again found wanting…

    Here is Cal’s wrap up of the ETS events:

    Choice quote therefrom:

    Shockingly enough, however, two evangelical Bible professors, whose work in the New Testament I have admired for many years, implied at last week’s annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is just as certain as Jesus’ existence.

    Dr. Douglas Moo—Chairman of the Department of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College—might not have thought through the logical implication when, after comparing people who question CAGW with an uneducated country pastor who couldn’t read transliterated Greek, he said, “to invite different perspectives on [CAGW] would be sort of like, ‘Let’s have a conference on Jesus in which we have equal representation by those who think Jesus existed and those who don’t think he did.’”

    And Dr. Richard Bauckham—Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland—might not have realized what he implied, either, when he said, “… we all know that the ‘Jesus didn’t exist position’ is way off in the margins. Climate change denial is, I think, the … equivalent of ‘Jesus didn’t exist’ in the scientific world.”

    Neither might have thought through the logical implication—indeed, I hope and pray that neither did, and that when they realize it, they’ll back off the claim—but it is clear anyway: Jesus’ existence is no more sure than “climate change”—by which neither Dr. Moo nor Dr. Bauckham meant simply that climate changes naturally over time (which no one denies) but, as their plenary lectures and comments in panel discussion made clear, recent and foreseeable climate change is primarily manmade and will be catastrophic, which, as I pointed out, tens of thousands of scientists deny.

    But both said these things in the course of criticizing—even ridiculing—the Cornwall Alliance and me for our views on climate. Dr. Bauckham even went so far as to directly insult me, saying, “Stop playing silly games with pseudo-science, and wake up to what’s really going on in the world!”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s