Jon Sellers
I liked your article (3 28) above and especially this quote:

Stewart wants to equate Dabney’s concerns with modern concerns about the very political movement of environmental radicalism. The actual science of climate change is deeply and internally conflicted. But the political agenda is all about taxing Americans and giving our money to the UN so they can push their agenda. Trump was right to pull out of Paris Accords. We can improve our carbon footprint without the UN.

And Christians today are very much engaged in wide ranging debate over geology, age of earth science, evolution, cosmology etc. Christians today love science. We love all the tech, medicine and other benefits we get from it everyday. Do we have to agree with all he metaphysical and philosophical conclusions secularist scientists hold in order to support science itself? No! Is there an atheistic, anti-Christian bias in much of science writing today? Yes!
But according to Stewart if we don’t accept the philosophical and political conclusions we are in “denial of science and critical thinking”
No, we just see clearly the difference between actual science and politics.

If you have a blog site etc, let me know!