John MacArthur: ‘God intended [earth] as a disposable planet’

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In this sermon, MacArthur paraphrases “a scientist at Cal Tech” (except not a scientist at all, but the novelist Michael Crichton, best known for Jurassic Park), as saying in a lecture:

    Consensus science is the first refuge of scoundrels … invoked only in situations where there is a political, social, financial agenda but no scientific support.

The reverend has the most serious reasons possible for rejecting the scientific consensus concerning the age of the Earth, the origins of humankind, the history and prehistory of the ancient near East and the peopling of continents: it is totally incompatible with the Genesis account of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and the dispersion of peoples from the Tower of Babel.

[...]

As for global warming itself, the reverend channels standard climate change denial, but all his arguments are unsound and have been convincingly refuted to the satisfaction of an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (see in-depth discussion at Skeptical Science). He understates the amount of global warming, incorrectly describes the full record as dating back only 30 years, and cites the Little Ice Age as evidence that the changes currently taking place are natural. There’s more:

    Here’s the key, friends, this is the real deal. Legitimate science recognises a close correlation between sunspots and climate change … The sun is the source of temperature changes because of its infrared variations. … There is absolutely no evidence that CO₂ contributes to warming. On the contrary the opposite is true. Warming produces CO₂ … It’s the other way round.

[...]

MacArthur offers a false dichotomy between saying that CO₂ warms the oceans, and warmer oceans release more CO₂. Unfortunately, both these statements are true. There is a positive feedback loop: human-released CO₂ is the primary driver, but its effect is amplified by the fact that yet more CO₂ is then released from non-human sources. Regarding CO₂ itself, MacArthur seems to be even more confused:

    By the way, plants produce CO₂. What man produces is marginal … Industry doesn’t affect CO₂ in the environment or atmosphere.

Plants do produce CO₂ but they absorb more than they emit. However, when it comes to humans, their activity may cause only a small imbalance each year between CO₂ emission and natural uptake, but this imbalance is cumulative. CO₂ levels are now 50% above pre-industrial, and subtle atomic differences clearly show that fossil fuel is the source. But according to MacArthur, “There is no scientific reason to believe that ice caps are melting”.

[...]

All is now clear. Talk of global warming is part of a politically motivated conspiracy. But US$100 billion? That’s 600 years’ worth of all federal climate research spending. Clearly, those pesky socialists and feminists are formidable fundraisers. However, none of this matters because environmentalism is fundamentally misplaced. As MacArthur puts it, citing Revelation and the integrity of scripture:

    God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that.

And that is a statement that would leave anybody who cares about this world speechless.

The Conversation

You would certainly be hard-pressed to find a nihilistic, misanthropic doomerist say anything quite as jarring as what MacArthur and company are promoting at his megachurch.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I really shouldn't lower myself like this but I can't help it:

John MacArthur is a disposable man.

[RFayette]

I like MacArthur, but he is clearly badly misinformed about this subject (or at least was in 2014, the video date). 

[Kingpoleon]

John MacArthur is a really serious problem for evangelicals. He’s not Jeffries or Franklin Graham - he’s a very, very smart man who sincerely believes what he preaches. And his sermons make Franklin Graham or Falwell look like bumbling toddlers. I do discourage people from trying to take him down, though. He would make a much better ally than enemy on things like evolution and climate change.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

John MacArthur is a really serious problem for evangelicals. He’s not Jeffries or Franklin Graham - he’s a very, very smart man who sincerely believes what he preaches. And his sermons make Franklin Graham or Falwell look like bumbling toddlers. I do discourage people from trying to take him down, though. He would make a much better ally than enemy on things like evolution and climate change.

An ally in what way? Graham's responsible for the Evangelical=GOP mantra, Falwell's already been disgraced and discredited, and MacArthur appeals to no one except for those not already receptive to the anti-science wing of American evangelicalism. If PR improvement is the goal, then conservative evangelicals need to give the Russell Moore's of the movement another look. And there's been no indication that that's what they intend to do.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I can never keep him and John Piper straight. That's not a compliment.

[Kingpoleon]

An ally in what way? Graham's responsible for the Evangelical=GOP mantra, Falwell's already been disgraced and discredited, and MacArthur appeals to no one except for those not already receptive to the anti-science wing of American evangelicalism. If PR improvement is the goal, then conservative evangelicals need to give the Russell Moore's of the movement another look. And there's been no indication that that's what they intend to do.

Forty percent of Americans don’t believe in evolution or climate change. The idea that mainline Protestants shouldn’t engage with those people or any of their leaders, or try to change their mind with a common alliance first, will result in a death blow to mainline Protestantism. I doubt that American Christianity would ever look the same after that.

[John Dule]

Who is this person?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

An ally in what way? Graham's responsible for the Evangelical=GOP mantra, Falwell's already been disgraced and discredited, and MacArthur appeals to no one except for those not already receptive to the anti-science wing of American evangelicalism. If PR improvement is the goal, then conservative evangelicals need to give the Russell Moore's of the movement another look. And there's been no indication that that's what they intend to do.

Forty percent of Americans don’t believe in evolution or climate change. The idea that mainline Protestants shouldn’t engage with those people or any of their leaders, or try to change their mind with a common alliance first, will result in a death blow to mainline Protestantism. I doubt that American Christianity would ever look the same after that.

Engage with them? Sure, I'm all for that. But I don't see what there is to ally with these people on. If their views win out among American Christians, then American Christianity is dead. The "YEC or nothing" dichotomy, along with climate change denial, both need to be rejected wholesale.

[Kingpoleon]

Engage with them? Sure, I'm all for that. But I don't see what there is to ally with these people on. If their views win out among American Christians, then American Christianity is dead. The "YEC or nothing" dichotomy, along with climate change denial, both need to be rejected wholesale.

I do think “alliance” is a misleading phrase there, and I misuse it. My apologies.

I meant to say that, among the fundamentalist crowd, John MacArthur displays a sort of intellect and capability that the rest of them don’t. I mean, we’re talking about a fundamentalist who’s displayed vast knowledge(and vocal criticism) of the Founding Fathers, who really has a cult like following that Graham and Jeffries lack.