Conclusion

                In this final post, I’ll wrap the things up by explaining the type thinking that led me to these conclusions, why it matters, and how it applies to other situations. For much of my life, I held firm beliefs about rights and wrongs, but reasoning and critical thought played minimal roles in determining which was which. My own desire to fit in made it nearly impossible to challenge the status quo. Now as discussed earlier, I believe there is a fundamental difference between scientific and experiential truth, but the ability to think critically assists in the pursuit of either. When faced with a statement that is more or less universally accepted (whether locally, nationally or whatever) people tend to go with the flow.  This is the opposite of thinking critically, which by definition, requires you to carefully consider the logical coherency and justifiability of any claim, regardless of its level of acceptance.  Historically, a lack of critical thinking has led to immense failures on the part of scientific and religious communities alike, not to mention a vast number of disagreeable individuals. This how cults get started, people get alienated, and knowledge becomes end in itself rather than a tool for a greater good. 

                Thankfully, there are processes in place to help maintain the integrity of academic institutions and Christian organizations. Scientific publications are peer-reviewed to ensure that they achieve a certain standard of practice, and in a similar process, Christian sermons, programs, and churches are regularly held up to established tradition and doctrine. Beware of any material from groups that neglect or belittle the importance of these safeguards!

                Hopefully by now, you have some idea of why I think all of this is important. Please don’t misinterpret this blog as merely promoting liberal ideals like thinking abstractly or conservative ideals such as being committed to a religious faith. This isn’t about the conclusions, it’s about the process. Being able to think independently is an essential skill for any leader engaged in any activity. How can humanity advance in any regard without the capacity and desire to improve upon established precedents? It doesn’t matter whether you are an engineer, a pastor, or a pastry chef. This world needs innovators, risk takers, and well-reasoned convictions. Be all that God (and perhaps evolution :)) created you to be!

                One of the joys of a liberal arts education is the privilege of studying a variety of subjects in a minimal amount of time. If you’re in college, take advantage of it. Talk to people who think and talk differently than you do. Don’t just receive information from lectures; evaluate it. Use it as such.  Diligently seek after natural and supernatural truth with all of the resources that your institution provides. Don’t be content with simple answers to complex questions. If you are not a college student, most of the same advice applies, but it will require a lot more intentionality on your part. Consider what hidden agendas your news sources may have, and always consult more than one. With the Internet, we have the single, most informative tool in the history of the universe. Use it as such! In fact, a good portion of the research for this blog was compiled by link-hopping and Wikipedia-surfing. Bottom line: find something that interests you and affects the way that you do your job and relate to the people around you. It’s easier to accept things the way that they are, but it’s better to think for yourself and act accordingly. Grace and peace,

Kevin

Project Summary

Well, the semester is officially over, and I managed to complete a 44 page final paper, a 20 minute presentation, and a 41 page log of all the work I completed. With all that sheer output, it would be easy for me to say now that I was too busy to blog, but that really wasn't the case. I spent a good amount of time lounging around, playing video games, and generally procrastinating. It’s amazing what you can get done in a week and a half when you have a deadline and only one thing to work on! What’s done is done, and I’m happy with the final product.

I got to work with a federally funded project specifically studying the perceptions and values of Great Barrier Reef users (tourists, commercial fisherman, traditional owners, etc.). Brief summary: The goal is the conservation of Australia’s, and perhaps the world’s, greatest natural resource, but its aim is to learn about the people affecting the reef rather than the ecological system itself. Basically, exactly what I wanted to do coming in J. Essentially, it was a short-term internship with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) as an internal advisor to their Social and Economic Long-Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP). Said project is in the midst of a three-and-a-half year planning phase, after which it will be initiated and employed by policymakers and natural resource managers. These people can be thought of as those who make long-term and short-term decisions, respectively, regarding who uses the reef.

My task was to interview each member of the design team and use their insights to summarize the overall purpose of the project, the current state of governmental policy in Australia, and the ways in which the project could be used to inform future policies. For those of you who don’t know, policies are sort of like a plan of action that a political group or department sets, saying, more or less, “This is what is important to us; what we will be working toward in the future.”  Environmental policy has a long history of placing biological concerns firmly above social and economic concerns. This appears to be a simple prioritizing of competing interests, but upon closer analysis, such policies are detrimental to all parties involved. A wide range of factors play into how people view the environment and the decisions they make as a result. A failure to account for these factors will prohibit actual change from occurring. For example, you can tell a fisherman not to fish in a certain area, but if he doesn’t understand why, and you don’t have the resources to enforce it, not much is going to change. Presently, there has been little effort to comprehensively document what people are doing, let alone hypothesizing why they are and what might be done to change it. This project seeks to accomplish substantial advances in these areas. 

Over the course of the month, I got to talk with some incredibly intelligent, caring people, most of whom were social scientists. Social science has a bit of a bad reputation within the greater academic community, probably due to its abstract and somewhat sensitive nature. Indeed, my first impression of the project was something along the lines of, “Wow that sounds so cool! And yet also virtually impossible…” Thankfully, many safeguards are in place to ensure the project’s success. The design team is not working in a vacuum; they are continually cooperating with each other and with prospective users of the information. Furthermore, roles are well-defined, and a full half of the members are responsible for keeping everybody on the same page with various aspects of the project. Accountability, transparency, and organization…good principles for life in general, not just social and economic monitoring programs :)

 

                I could go on and on about my experience, but I’ll end there and start a summary of what I’ve learned (both practically and ideologically) over the course of the semester in relation to the central questions addressed in the blog. Coming into the semester, I had a basic knowledge of what the theory of evolution means biologically. If you truly understand what it is saying and look closely at the world around you, the evidence for it is simply undeniable. Separate lines of reasoning across multiple academic disciplines (biochemistry, paleontology, biology) affirm its validity for scientifically evaluating relationships between living species. As for counterarguments such as irreducible complexity and gaps in the fossil record, this website does a more thorough job refuting them than I would ever hope to be able to accomplish: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . Also, this page provides a more succinct summary: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html  . Suffice to say that most of the scientific “problems” with the theory of evolution have been put forth by people with non-scientific agendas and conspicuous misunderstandings about the scientific method or the theory itself. In the last 4 months or so, I’ve had a lot more time to reflect on what all of this means with respect to my worldview and my role with the church and society as a whole. 

                As discussed earlier, I simultaneously support the ideas that Jesus Christ is the light of the world and that the theory of evolution is a scientifically valid. While personally I don’t perceive a conflict between these two positions, I admit here that supporting both requires somewhat moderate interpretations and applications of each. I think the main reason for this is not the concepts themselves, but rather the ways in which they have been applied and portrayed in recent years.  

  

                Before the rise of modern science in the 16^th century, human beings viewed the world in a distinctly different way from the way that they view it today. The scientific method has given us a lens by which to understand and unlock the inner workings of nature, and the knowledge of these inner workings enables us to more efficiently and successfully work for the long term good of living things. Both the early scientific pioneers and many modern Christians view science as a gift from God, and I can’t help but agree. In short, there is nothing inherently “unchristian” about science.

                Where then, does all this gol’ darn creation vs. evolution conflict come from? Here’s a bit of history for you: Before the 1800’s, anybody who was anybody (read: rich/white/powerful) believed that the Bible was 100 percent historically accurate and that the earth was roughly 6000 years old. There was little reason to doubt this, so science, including biology, was done accordingly. Naturally, it took a naturalist (haha, see what I did there?), namely Charles Darwin, to break free from that box. Since Origin of Species was published in 1859, it has been atrociously misunderstood and misused by just about everybody: religious and irreligious, liberals and conservatives, you name it. These follies can be grouped into two categories: denial and obsession. 

                For religious extremists, the easiest way to deal with evolution is to explain it away. This is done primarily through creation “science,” which involves a strange concoction common sense arguments, pen-pushing, and misplaced arguments; ironically the exact things that the scientific method filters out. A quick word on so-called “intelligent design.” As originally conceived by biochemist Michael Behe, this idea was never intended to overthrow the basic tenants of the theory of evolution, but rather to provide a framework for direct, divine intervention within a biologically honest  framework. In particular, he cited the astoundingly complex biochemical pathways as too detailed to have been constructed by natural selection, genetic drift, and the other factors commonly cited as drivers of evolutionary change. 

                Irreligious extremists (think Richard Dawkins), on the other hand, tend to “do away with” religion by describing it in evolutionary terms. In doing so, they make some incredibly bold leaps in logic. Even if we had a complete working knowledge of how human brains function (which we don’t), it would still be preposterous to think we could fully understand the origins of human spirituality. The funny thing is that in misapplying what they consider to be common sense, they make a strikingly similar mistake to that of the religious extremists. 

                Hopefully by now, you’ve gathered that I don’t fall into either category. For the record, there a lot of people who disagree with me. Extreme academics would argue that I am letting sentiments get in the way of simple logic, i.e. extrapolation of evolutionary thought into the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, or psychology. Likewise, fundamentalist Christians would argue that I have been “corrupted” by liberal thought. In a way, it’s a bit like straddling a fence, but it’s not out of indecision. I’ve thought about it, decided upon my current position, and will remain there for the foreseeable future. In doing so, I expose myself to ideological mudslinging from both sides, but hey, someone has to take it, right? Maybe, just maybe, I can take enough of it to convince a few people from both sides that the fence is, in actuality, an arbitrary mental construction that really isn’t worth anyone’s time. In my next and final post, I’ll explain how this situation has opened my eyes to see God’s will for me as a peacemaker in a range of contexts. Thanks for reading!

Lizard Island

Wow, what a place! 10 days at Lizard Island Research Station, situated right in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef on national park land. 4 hours of snorkeling per day, and I still feel like I am just beginning to appreciate its breathtaking natural beauty. At first it’s a bit too much to take in. Sure, it looks nice, and there are lots of fish, but you have no idea what to look for, or where to look for it. A couple of our afternoon lectures were devoted to learning about the biology and distributions of the different types of animals on the reef: corals, fishes, and invertebrates, such as starfish, octopuses, sea cucumbers, and nudibranchs. By the end of the week, I could identify most of what I was looking at to the family level at least. This knowledge also helped with my field project involving wrass behavior and distributions. With the scenery, the learning, and the food, it just might have been the best week of my life. Check out the pictures on facebook!

A good portion of the rest of our lectures was dedicated to reef conservation and management. Most people mistakenly think of climate change solely in human terms. A few degrees difference won’t affect much, right? Sure melting icecaps could have an impact, but worst case scenario, some coastal cities just have to move further inland, right? Besides, the running joke in Michigan is that we could use a few extra degrees! Unfortunately, regardless of what is causing it, rising global temperatures are already taking a heavy toll on reef ecosystems around the world. A staggering 70% of the world’s coral reefs have been significantly damaged. The reason is that corals are much more sensitive to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon levels than are human beings. Most species rely on a symbiotic relationship with microscopic creatures called zooxanthellae. Atmospheric extremes, such as high temperatures and acidity, cause the corals to expel the zooxanthellae, which leads to “bleaching” and often death.  This has an impact on fish communities, human tourism economies, and even terrestrial ecosystems through a sort of domino effect.

Since I laid the background for the whole “faith vs. science” discussion last post, I’m going to jump straight the application of it to this situation. The big question when it comes to conservation is this: how much stress can the system take before it collapses? The answer to this question determines the most reasonable course of action. I firmly believe that the scientific method (observation, natural explanation, prediction, experimentation) is the best tool that humanity has to find such an answer. Religious explanations for species diversity (i.e. Young-Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) may or may not be “true,” but they are definitely not predictive. The theory of evolution is. In following the scientific method, it was observed that limited resources cause competition between species. The theory supposes the wins and losses of such competition add up over long-periods of time such that life adapts to slowly changing conditions. It predicts, among other things, that such adaptations can be observed, that certain species will be associated with certain conditions, and that rapid environmental shifts will be damaging to overall ecosystem health (i.e. more extinctions, less productivity, less life). Most experimentation supports these predictions. I won’t go into great detail here, but if you want specifics, just let me know J

The idea that the universe has a designer is (I believe) a wonderful religious principle, that I unashamedly, fully, 100%, completely agree with. It assures me and many others that life matters, that all people are worth loving, and that certain religious communities are contributing to a transcendent cause. Unfortunately, said principle is not particularly useful scientifically. Creationism gets you to step two, then just makes up its own rules as it goes along. The Bible and other religious texts are (some more than others) amazing resources for answering “why” questions, but they can’t, and frankly don’t need to, be used for “how” questions.

Speaking of “why” questions, how about this one: “Why should we attempt to conserve the natural environment?” First of all, the obvious: how would you like to live in a world without the many economic, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits of well-functioning ecosystems? You don’t have to believe all the doomsday predictions; just think about some of the experiences you have had with nature. Virtually all worldviews contains some sort of moral code related to the “Golden Rule.” Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you have the command to love your neighbor as yourself (as in sacrificially serve, as Christ did and does). Whether or not future generations count for this, I’m honestly not sure, but besides, poor people today are suffering from climate change more than you think. Middle-class white Americans aren’t going to starve to death if native crops stop growing, but peasants in developing countries might. As for the Old Testament command to “rule over every living creature” (Gen. 1:28), how exactly should we carry that out? Shouldn’t it be in the same way that God modeled leadership for us on the cross? What better way to obey God than to sacrifice short-term economic progress for the long-term well-being of the poor, the rest of creation, and future generations! Please understand that I am promoting this as one of many forms of willing obedience in response to God’s love for us, not a way to salvation or an excuse to judge people, Christian or otherwise.

Alright, back to coral (finally). The whole point of that long-winded explanation was to show why I think that science-based, active management of natural environment should be a major priority of people groups everywhere (churches, communities, cities, nations, etc.). Science shows us that the natural world is highly interconnected, and that human expansion and activity are causing it significant distress. Experiencing this wonderful continent has made the issue very real to me. The preservation of the Great Barrier Reef and other natural wonders is likely connected to carbon emissions. Take personal responsibility. Carpool or ride a bike to work/school. Consider environmental issues when voting. Plant some trees. If you have the resources, invest in renewable energy for your own personal use. Talk about these things with your family and friends. Just do something!

Alright, I think that wins “longest post award.” Hope it makes some sense. Please ask questions if you have them, and pass this along to anyone who might be interested. I recently “moved” to Townsville, which is four hours south of Cairns, where I will be completing an independent study project that has to do with coral reef conservation status and policy. I’ll post again in a week or two when I have a better idea of what that will look like. Thanks for reading!

Rainforest Trip

Rainforest trip: check! I’ll be honest, before I considered signing up for this semester abroad, I didn’t even know Australia had rainforest. Now I can tell the difference between complex notophyll vine forest and simple microphyll fern forest without blinking an eye. What a difference a year makes, eh? While we are on the subject, I’ll give a few quick notes about the remarkable habitat diversity found in North Queensland. The various soil, rain, and wind conditions provide support a plethora of forest structures. Most people think of rainforest as thick jungle with near impenetrable undergrowth and an abundance of vines, and some of it is, but more often it is something else entirely that can only be adequately described after careful observation. For example, the canopy could be dominated by convoluted fig trees (known as “stranglers”), the appropriately named paperbarks, or even deciduous cedars. It could also have numerous gaps or few, which is often indicative of the level of recent cyclone damage. The understory is sometimes quite easily navigable. After years of study, scientists now have a better understanding of why these things occur. The study of the relationships between geologic factors, habitat types, and native wildlife, known as landscape ecology, is truly a fascinating area of study!

Perhaps more interesting is the animals themselves. My personal favorite is the Lumholtz’s tree kangaroo, a truly amazing marsupial that spends most of its life high in the trees, eating various leaves and stems. It was one of the few things we didn’t see on the trip. Two cassowaries (the breathtaking flightless bird I mentioned in an earlier post), a delightfully awkward emu, a couple of coppery brushtail possums, several pademelons (small, hopping rainforest kangaroos), sugar gliders (the marsupial equivalent of a flying squirrel) and last, but certainly not least, a 10-foot amethystine python with a partially digested pademelon (we think) inside! So cool. An equally interesting part of the trip was meeting people who have lived in, studied, and cared for the Australian rainforest most of their lives. The owners of all of the hostels and campgrounds we stayed at had a working knowledge of basic ecology and the lifestyles of the native wildlife. Even Jack, our “professor” for the trip, owns property in North Queensland, from which he studies tropical bird communities. Over the past 10 years or so, he has been part of a volunteer-led reforestation project designed to reduce future damage to rainforest wildlife by connecting isolated habitats. Bottom line, it’s nice to know that there are people out there who actually care about this stuff. Understanding the world is great and all, but, in my opinion, research doesn’t do much good if it’s never applied to real world situations whenever appropriate. These people understand that, and hopefully you will too by the end of this blog!

Now that we are about halfway in the semester, I think it’s about time I started answering the questions I laid out at the beginning of the blog. In order to know the difference between scientific and experiential truth, we’ll need to investigate the history and methods of science and religion.

First of all, let me say that the history of science and religion is complicated. Some Christians label modern scientists as anti-religion or even demonic, while some scientists bemoan the way that religion has restricted and continues to restrict the advancement of human knowledge and the betterment of society in general. Clearly, lumping large and diverse groups of people into a big ol’ mental boxes and calling it a day isn’t going to get us very far. In order to understand and cooperate with people that are different from us, we need acknowledge differences, while simultaneously trying to find some common ground.

 Admittedly, I haven’t studied this a whole lot, but as a naïve undergrad, I like to think that all great scientists are united by an insatiable curiosity, whereas great religious leaders strive to find meaning in the existence of humanity and the universe itself. The purpose of the scientific method is to better understand the intricate inter-workings of the natural world by stripping away cultural biases, observational misconceptions, and supernatural explanations: in short, to learn about the natural world in terms of the natural world, by looking at the natural world. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s been quite successful. The purpose of religion, on the other hand, is to describe how to live a life worth living in an incredibly hectic and confusing world. It accomplishes this primarily through tradition, story, and teachings, and for many people, it does this quite well.

To summarize, we have two disciplines that have distinctly different purposes and methods. These methods are not interchangeable. To illustrate, I will share two anecdotes; one personal, one hypothetical. I’ve heard a scientist friend of mine remark, “I’ll believe in God when I see the evidence for it. Until then, I’ll remain agnostic.” The problem with this is that it treats faith like a science experiment. You can’t get supernatural insights if you are only looking at the natural world.  Simple logic, right? However it goes both ways. It is, by definition, impossible to get scientific insights from religious principles or texts. Think of it this way. Imagine a scientist comes to you and says, “Hey, I had an amazing revelation today! Atoms are mostly empty space. That means that God cares more about nothingness than actual matter!” You would respond, “You’re nuts!” and not think twice about it. Scientists feel the same way about creation science. Not because they hate the concept of God or Christianity (most don’t), but because such arguments do an injustice to the system they follow and the community they are a part of.

Please understand that my goal here is not to take sides, but to build bridges. It pains me to see two groups of people with rich histories and so many resources at their disposal hating each other for no good reason. Perhaps if we, as a race, stop demonizing each other, we can work together to accomplish that which we do agree on. Such as the continuation of life on this planet as we know it. Peace.

Aboriginal Camping Trip

Pictures are up! I’m still not up to snuff when it comes to making cool-looking blogs (or being creative in general for that matter), so I decided to leave bulk of the pictures on Facebook and post one of my personal favorites below. It was taken on the last morning of my homestay at a place called Earl Hill. It’s about a 20 minute hike straight uphill, and I got a lot of spider webs to the face on the way up, but I managed to make it to the top by around 6 am. I watched beautiful, but subdued colors for 15 minutes or so, and naively thinking the show was over, Istarted to head back down the hill. Then, 100 yards down the hill, I look to my left and see a brilliant burst of yellow light shining from above a cloud low on the horizon. I literally sprinted back up the hill to take a few pictures and take it all in. So beautiful!

Last week, I had the great privilege of embarking upon a camping trip led by aboriginal elder Russell Butler and his son Darren. In order to better appreciate the native way of life, we weren’t allowed to bring computers, cameras, or even watches. Aboriginal culture is all about living in the present while acknowledging the past. Even quite recently, a mere two-hundred years ago, they had no concept of man-made time divisions such as hours, minutes, and seconds. In fact, to this day, many of them see our time system as lifeless and dehumanizing, which is a fascinating topic of discussion that I don’t really have a lot of information on. Yet :) 

First, we visited Undara, a charming campground in the Australian savannah; the “bush” as it is commonly referred to by locals. This region is too far away from the coast and its abundant rainfall to support large rainforest systems, so the landscape is instead dominated by cool, open eucalypt forest, which is nearly as beautiful and significantly more comfortable than the rainforest with its stifling humidity. The natural landscape is characterized by sparsely distributed, wild-looking eucalypt trees, grasses, rocks, snakes, birds, and best of all, an abundance of wallabies and kangaroos. There was a group of about 20 rock wallabies right at the campsite, many with joeys still in the pouch. The cutest ones were getting too big and had to stick their legs out the front. When they stuck their heads out for some fresh air, it looked impeccably like they were chillin’ in a Lazy Boy. So cool! During our stay at Undara, we had a wonderful ranger and guide named Ross who was just a bundle of energy despite his advanced age. He treated us to two solid hours of Australian folk songs (complete with a ukelele) and stories on our first night there and guided tours of stunning lava tubes up to 50 feet in diameter thereafter; one with a single bat community of over 500,000 members.

Our second campsite was a solid half-hour drive through a cattle plantation to a remote, sandy riverbank site in a similar climate. This was really in the bush. Here, we passed the days reading, cooking, fishing, swimming, and having ideological discussions about education, religion, culture, and whatever happened to be on our minds. Not bad for a week of school, eh? Over the course of the week, “Uncle” Russ taught us about his tribe’s religious stories, innumerable culinary and medicinal uses for native plants, as well as the intricacies of spear throwing. I even managed to win my very own woomera (throwing stick) in the end of the week contest!  The trip also opened up my eyes to the immense difficulties facing opportunities facing aboriginal communities today. In order to understand the full scope of what’s going on, we’ll need to delve into the social and environmental history of this continent.

Scholars agree that Aboriginal Australians had one the longest, if not the longest, uninterrupted occupation of a single continent in human history before European settlement. Over the course of thousands of years, they developed a complex culture involving webs of intertribal and interfamilial relations, a widely established system of law, and unwavering religious devotion. Hundreds of tribes, languages, and dialects dotted the Australian landscape. There are many profoundly beautiful aspects of this culture and much that European society could learn from it, even today. First and foremost is a commitment to the land. The religion, tribal associations, and food supply were all intimately connected to and dependent upon the land which the tribes occupied. The resulting respect for nature led to sustainable living on both an individual and communal scale. No large-scale wars broke out between the tribes, because they loved and took responsibility for the land they had. The semi-nomadic nature of the tribes ensured that plants and animals were free from the stress of having to cope with year-round human use. In some tribes, kangaroos, an important source of lean protein, were protected by religious customs, which outlawed hunting at their breeding sites. Amazingly, all of this was accomplished without a written language. They instead depended on the much more personal process of orally transferring information from generation to generation. The result was continuity, in the truest sense of the word. It wasn’t perfect, but also wasn’t marred by some of the drawbacks of the European colonial system which left a trail of minority oppression and cultural and environmental destruction in its wake.

This is getting a little long, so I’ll come back to current aboriginal issues later. Suffice to say that they have experienced a similar degree of racism, injustice, and long-term abuse to that suffered by African Americans over the last two hundred years, and they are about twenty years behind the United States in terms of public perception, prejudices, and their place in society as a whole. There are a number of reasons for this, none of them simple, but there is a lot of movement toward political social reform, especially amongst the younger white Australians and elderly Aboriginal Australians. I’ve had almost a full week of rainforest ecology lectures back in Cairns and am (almost) ready to embark on a 10-day rainforest field trip in the morning. I’ll have details on that in my next post. Thanks for reading!

Homestay

Just finished up a two-week homestay with the wonderful Bob and Christine Mahaffey and their two daughters, and for the first time, I feel as if I have experienced Australian culture, much of it involving good food, thought-provoking conversation, and more reality shows than you can shake a stick at. Seriously, they’ve got one for everything: losing weight, marriage, cooking, beach rescues, and even airport customs. That last one’s not a joke, look it up! There is an air of optimism here that isn’t often found in America. Maybe it’s the climate (warm year-round) or the natural beauty (does it get any better than rainforest covered mountains sloping directly to the ocean?). Or maybe it’s just been sunny for the last week and I got lucky. Whatever the case, I must say, I’m enjoying it immensely, and I count myself extremely blessed to call this continent home for the next couple of months.

The most important thing I’ve learned so far is unfortunately also the most depressing. There may have been a kernel of truth in that classic western cliché, “this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.” (for the record, I always thought that saying was ridiculous. Taking it literally, it makes no sense. I mean, really, they’re both standing right there…) To state the problem most simply, there are not enough natural resources on the planet to sustain the number of people (with their corresponding energy demands) that are projected to be alive 50 years from now. Some ecologists argue that earth can’t even support the current population sustainably. Compounding the issue is the commonly held practice of land clearing for the purpose of urban development and agriculture. Frankly, no other conservation issue (climate change, ozone layer depletion, pollution, etc.) matters if we continue our current rate of population growth and land destruction.

Natural ecosystems provide the conditions necessary for our food supply. All of it. Everything we eat was at one time alive. Scientific research has repeatedly shown that urban and agricultural habitats are far inferior to natural ones at the task of maintaining the vast variety of life-forms that provide vital ecological functions. This variety, called “biodiversity” by biologists, is necessary for environmental recovery in the case of natural disasters such as plagues, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions. It is important to note new strategies are softening the impact of agriculture and urbanization, but again, it won’t help long-term if the whole population/land consumption thing doesn’t get figured out.

 There are some simple things we can do as individuals and as a community (that’s you Hope College) to help. One, get the word out! Here’s a video that explains sustainability quickly and effectively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5NiTN0chj0&feature=related. Two, start considering adoption now, especially if you are planning on having more than two kids. Three, get involved. Oppose misinformation. Be informed. Somehow, the environment has become a political issue, rather than a humanitarian one, so lots of money is spent to confuse people into voting for one party or another. Care for the earth, future generations, and life in general by paying attention to where your information is coming from. Do they have a political agenda? Is their argument based on scientific evidence or on common sense? Next post, I’ll explain why the former is more dependable.

There are a lot of catchphrases out there demanding change. Call it “creation care”, “conservation ecology”, “common sense”, or whatever you want. Pick one and go with it, because if Western culture remains as it does now, lots of people will suffer dearly in the relatively near future. Long-term change will require a change in focus away from economic “progress” and toward well-planned sustainability. This means more investment in alternative energy, ecology, and education, especially for impoverished women, as birth rate decline is highly correlated with educational advances. Admittedly, none of these are my area of expertise, but I can try to convince people, especially Christians since I know so many J, to pay attention to what scientists have been saying for the last 50 years. As the old Alcoholics Anonymous adage says so profoundly: “The first step is admitting that you have a problem.”

For the record, this post is about a week late. I ran out of time before I had to pack for my camping trip, during which I had no Internet access. In any case, thanks for reading and I’ll have more details and pictures up soon, I promise!

Orientation

Orientation week is over, and I must say, it doesn't feel like school has started yet. One quick day of safety procedures, and we were off on an assortment of rainforest hikes, cultural immersions and aboriginal tourist attractions. It's still sort of a jumbled mess in my head, but I'll try to summarize some of what I learned: Australia is cool. I've seen wild tree kangaroos, forest dragons (green lizards), large spiders, all kinds of birds, nad even a platypus! In a habitat reservation, we also saw live koalas, wallabies, pythons, and a cassowary (a large flightless, seed-eating bird). All of these creatures are adept at surviving in Australia's varied climate and unpredictable weather patterns. I won't go into detail here, just know that these things wouldn't still be alive if not for their pouches, weird hopping motions, absurdly large foreheads, and all the other features that make them unique to the world.

Sadly, a lot of these animals are being threatened by human activity. With modern advances in medicine, agriculture, and technology, populations are booming and productivity is soaring, at least temporarily. The problem is, as in most European-inspired societies, is that it isn't sustainable. Human beings and the plants and animals they have brought with them are crowding out the natives, which despite their resilience, have historically had a lot more space to work with. It's quite trendy to say we should help the environment, but how? We can't just stop everything and plant a few trees, because too many human beings would starve to death. Clearly, economic concerns need to be integrated with environmental concerns. This IS possible, and the research I do at the end of this semester should yield some practical ideas.

Even if we could just drop everything and leave, it would take a lot more than planting a few trees to reverse the damage that has already been caused. Where do we even start? That's where biology comes in. Like them or not, the prevailing theories in ecology and evolutionary biology are powerful predictive tools. They work. If they didn't, scientists wouldn't keep them around. Already, many applications of modern science have shown to be helpful in the development of long-term solutions to the environmental problems plaguing this planet, which, contrary to common opinion among Christians, is what a lot of them are after. I'm conviced that most of the animosity between scientists and Christians is caused by misunderstanding each others' motives. More on that in a later post.

Alright, enough science for now! To summarize, I've had an absolute blast with SIT's "hands-on" approach to learning, and I;ve made some great friends along the way. Stay tuned for more next week. (pictures should be up within the next few days as well)

Introduction

I made it! After over 30 hours of traveling and a few mishaps in various airports, I have arrived safely in Cairns, Australia, where I will be spending the majority of the upcoming semester. Three and a half months from now, I will have added a new chapter to my life; one including reef snorkeling, rainforest excursions, and a whole lot of cultural reflection. I’m here partly for an adventure, but more so to learn about the world and the way I see it; to redeem and refine the way I view life. The goal is to supplement my upbringing and corresponding worldview with a global context and perspective. Much of this will inevitably have a Christian slant, but I hope that people of all backgrounds and beliefs can gain something from this narrative.

Yesterday morning , I got to go into the rainforest for the first time. Although it wasn’t in the “wild” per se (we visited a city sponsored botanical garden), I came away with a clearer picture of the incredible biological diversity and beauty characteristic of this planet’s tropics. There were literally hundreds of different species of plants in sight of the mile or so of trail we hiked. For those of you who don’t know, this latitude, as well as the corresponding one in the northern hemisphere, receives the most rainfall in the world. There are a couple of simple geological reasons for this. The equator is, on average, perpendicular to the sun’s incoming energy, thus water is quickly evaporated and gathered into rainclouds. Prevailing winds, driven by temperature differences and the earth’s rotation, push moisture away from the equator until atmospheric cooling condenses it into raindrops. Pure water is one of the most important components of life, so the result is a vibrant tapestry of living creatures; an ecological goldmine. Here, each organism is dependent on the complex interactions and relationships of the others. Whether  land or sea, reef or rainforest, the glory of God’s creation is on full display!

 Along with accounts of my travels, I will be using this space to reflect on a few key questions that have been bouncing around in my head for quite some time.

1.       What is the relationship between scientific truth and experiential truth?

This question is virtually always on my mind. As a Christian scientist, it’s almost impossible not to be confronted with this on a daily basis. I’m going to come out and say right now that I “believe” in the theory of evolution as a scientific principle. Also “believe” that Jesus Christ is the light of the world and that there is no salvation apart from him. Clearly, these are different types of belief. One informs my scientific research and another will help me decide who to marry someday. Bet you can’t guess which is which! All jokes aside, my point is that there is a difference, which I think needs to be acknowledged and taken into account by Christians and non-Christians, religious and irreligious, scientists and non-scientists alike.

2.       How can we reduce the damage that European societal structure is causing to the natural environment, cultural minority, and future generations?

This is the big question when it comes to synthesizing my identity in Christ, my gifting in scientific thought, and privileged position in society. I am convinced that these problems are interrelated. My independent research project at the end of the semester will be centered on practical steps toward long-term progress in the areas of sustainability and respect for all peoples. Don’t get me wrong, Jesus is the ultimate answer to all of the problems we face, but there are certain changes that can be made by individuals and governments that would help! I’ll have more pictures and details next time. Thanks for reading!