Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

New Religion?


jethro

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    A while ago I posted two links in the sceptics links thread, asking if anyone could define or explain the difference between them. One link was for an Evangelist movement, the other for Al Gore and how to sign up to his campaign. Many times on these threads, the accusation of Climate Change as being almost a new religion has been raised, usually to much disdain and heated denouncements. Today I found this; for me, a worrying developement. Have a read, look at the signatures at the bottom. Religion has no place in science; if people, whatever their career, have a religious belief, so be it, that's their right. However, when their beliefs become entangled with their career to this extent then questions need to be asked.

    p.s don't shoot the messenger folks.

    http://chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases...l_to_action.pdf

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 38
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    A while ago I posted two links in the sceptics links thread, asking if anyone could define or explain the difference between them. One link was for an Evangelist movement, the other for Al Gore and how to sign up to his campaign. Many times on these threads, the accusation of Climate Change as being almost a new religion has been raised, usually to much disdain and heated denouncements. Today I found this; for me, a worrying developement. Have a read, look at the signatures at the bottom. Religion has no place in science; if people, whatever their career, have a religious belief, so be it, that's their right. However, when their beliefs become entangled with their career to this extent then questions need to be asked.

    p.s don't shoot the messenger folks.

    http://chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases...l_to_action.pdf

    There are several well known religious sceptic scientists*. So what? Do people like me go around NW say the kind ad homming things you have above of them? Well, do we?

    * I can name them if you like?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    There are several well known religious sceptic scientists*. So what? Do people like me go around NW say the kind ad homming things you have above of them? Well, do we?

    * I can name them if you like?

    And did I? No, I didn't. I said, don't shoot the messenger, merely reporting, highlighting, drawing attention to what I consider to be a dangerous, wrong, new slant on this whole debate.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    And did I? No, I didn't. I said, don't shoot the messenger, merely reporting, highlighting, drawing attention to what I consider to be a dangerous, wrong, new slant on this whole debate.

    Ok, I'll merely report and highlight that Roy Spencer (of satellite temperature fame) is a christian and supporter of 'intelligent design', that Ross McKitrick (who's worked closely with famed sceptic Steve McIntyre) also is, and that Richard Countney (also a long time much published sceptic) is a methodist.

    I'll then ask - So bleeding what?!

    What good does throwing such mud do? Now, if you can show being religious might have effected someone's work then show it, else lets end this because it can, as I show, be cancelled out by other mud.

    Oh, and I'm merely the messenger...and I'm NOT religious...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

    I have had a quick scan through and, I personally wouldn't be alarmed (at the moment). No matter how much we can argue, it cannot be denied that humans have had an impact on the Earth's Environment, either by climate (yes, we know it is unsure as to what degree, but, it is possible by quite a bit and any effort we make to clean up after ourselves is no bad thing regardless), environmental damage such as rain forests, mining waste into seas and rivers, sewage into seas and rivers, damage from oil extraction, landfills (list is endless).

    I do not see the paper saying that the scientific community is having to take on a Creator stance to be part of, it states "For many of us, this is a religious obligation," not all, so a number of those who signed may not believe in a Creator. It just means that two sectors which before were at loggerheads now realise that something is or may be happening which needs concerted combined effort and that as said above, arguing will no longer help the situation regardless.

    I see this as a positive step towards religion and science working together, which, if done right, would bring a moral and possibly spiritual bearing on scientific findings. In the case of Earth Changes, it should be our absolute moral obligation to clean up after ourselves, we are after all looking after this planet at this time, for our children, and their children and so on. The two sectors working together does not necessarily mean that the two will become completely intermixed.

    For those who have studied the Mayan Calendar in depth, is this what they spoke of for 2012, once under the unified god, that two worlds will work as one, all will work together under a unified world whereby cold hard factual science, and spiritual and moral religion will work as one for the better of the planet, and once these worlds come together we will have a more balanced, settled and understanding population.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl

    Having read this report for the first time today I see no problem with any of the content.

    In fact, I ask this: What part of this one page article can you disagree with?

    It talks of a moral obligation to protect the earth. It talks of reckless human activity that has damaged the balance of resources on the earth.

    Perhaps this is best summed up with the one sentence:

    "We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative."

    Or is it that the belief in God scares you more than climate change?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    Just thought I'd add my bit. This declaration - it isn't a scientific statement, but an expression of opinion - was aimed to counter an element of the 'sceptical assault' on CC science in the USA, which was trying to claim that climate science was ungodly & therefore immoral, therefore wrong. It wouldn't matter over here, because we are a bit more secular in our attitudes, but it does matter in the USA, where 70% of the poulation goes to church on a Sunday, and claims of 'divine approval' are taken seriously, however spurious they are. Some scientists and religious leaders thought it would be a good idea to 'set the record straight', before climate science was assailed by the 'religious right', in the same way that Darwinism has been.

    As jethro says, religion has no place in science - or at least, science should not be influenced by religious considerations - and the scientific community was a bit concerned about how such a declaration might be interpreted. However, it appears to have done the job, inasmuch as there are few attempts these days to challenge the science of CC from the religious angle. This is not really about the science, but about public opinion in the USA.

    I hope this places the declaration in context for people and alleviates any concern that science is suddenly going to defer to religious authority for its validity.

    :)P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    So no one has a problem with religion and science uniting under one veil then? So long as it is for the greater good eh, for a cause we all believe in? Let's unite and save the world, ooops, silly me, creation. Would you all also support the religious view in America that only creation be taught in schools, not evolution? Personal, religious beliefs are fine, don't have a problem with that, I hold my own. But.... look at the title for goodness sake "Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation".

    Devotion to a cause is not this same as solid, valid, science. The former is open to interpretation, the latter is, or should be above reproach.

    I've always maintained, religion doesn't cause wars; wars are caused by despots. In order to provoke/inspire the man in the street to fight their war or cause, despots invoke religion to motivate the masses. It's wrong, immoral and dangerous. Isn't it already bad enough that anyone who has the slightest interest in AGW has to wade through acres of media hogwash and political interference in order to get anywhere near the science without adding this nonsense to further muddy the waters.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    So no one has a problem with religion and science uniting under one veil then? So long as it is for the greater good eh, for a cause we all believe in? Let's unite and save the world, ooops, silly me, creation. Would you all also support the religious view in America that only creation be taught in schools, not evolution? Personal, religious beliefs are fine, don't have a problem with that, I hold my own. But.... look at the title for goodness sake "Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation".

    Devotion to a cause is not this same as solid, valid, science. The former is open to interpretation, the latter is, or should be above reproach.

    I've always maintained, religion doesn't cause wars; wars are caused by despots. In order to provoke/inspire the man in the street to fight their war or cause, despots invoke religion to motivate the masses. It's wrong, immoral and dangerous. Isn't it already bad enough that anyone who has the slightest interest in AGW has to wade through acres of media hogwash and political interference in order to get anywhere near the science without adding this nonsense to further muddy the waters.

    I don't have a problem with religion, or science, but I do if religion interferes with science.

    I don't see that here any more than I do with the sceptic chaps I mentioned. But, if you do, then several main pillars of the sceptic edifice come crumbling down as well...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    Just thought I'd add my bit. This declaration - it isn't a scientific statement, but an expression of opinion - was aimed to counter an element of the 'sceptical assault' on CC science in the USA, which was trying to claim that climate science was ungodly & therefore immoral, therefore wrong. It wouldn't matter over here, because we are a bit more secular in our attitudes, but it does matter in the USA, where 70% of the poulation goes to church on a Sunday, and claims of 'divine approval' are taken seriously, however spurious they are. Some scientists and religious leaders thought it would be a good idea to 'set the record straight', before climate science was assailed by the 'religious right', in the same way that Darwinism has been.

    As jethro says, religion has no place in science - or at least, science should not be influenced by religious considerations - and the scientific community was a bit concerned about how such a declaration might be interpreted. However, it appears to have done the job, inasmuch as there are few attempts these days to challenge the science of CC from the religious angle. This is not really about the science, but about public opinion in the USA.

    I hope this places the declaration in context for people and alleviates any concern that science is suddenly going to defer to religious authority for its validity.

    :)P

    And as you say, 70% of the populace goes to church. I was well aware of the context but no it doesn't alleviate any concern, nor should it. The populace of every country should be given the scientific facts and decisions should be made on these alone. Swaying a VAST part of the population by giving it the religious thumbs, let's unite to save the creation is utter bullonions. Those scientists involved should be ashamed of themselves. Are they so insecure that their research and peer review process doesn't offer enough validation that they have to throw this into the pot too? Have you seen the anti-abortion tactics they apply over there? Bombs, shootings? Godless, heathen women and doctors too are subject to it.

    I firmly believe this is taking the situation way too far, down a dangerous, immoral route. I don't care that science is not defering to religion for validity, I care greatly that science is holding hands with religion to gain support with the masses.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

    I have no problem with a moral and spiritual group uniting under one umbrella with a scientific group if done correctly. I do though not see the relation of the title of the paper and its content apart from making it more pleasing to the US population.

    It is morally and spiritually right that we look after this world regardless if it is in danger of self destructing. At least then, if it does go bad, we can say we tried, we did our bit.

    Oh, and not all religions believe in god/gods/godesses, creation etc, many just have a moral code which works with the Earth and many would do to learn some of it.

    For the record, I do not believe in teaching only the Creation theory in schools, it is a possible theory which children should be made aware of, part of our history too, same as the Big Bang/Inflation theory and so many other theories that are possibles, just that, possibles, in truth, we just dont know and humans have a track record of believing the wrong thing for many years, hundreds and thousands of years at times, both religiously and scientifically.

    In a thousand years time we might all found out to be very wrong on all accounts.

    Science is not the be all and end all, same as religion.

    With open eyes any person should be able to see that there are changes, in climate and environment, especially in today's age of information and communications, and that, for our children and children's children should be enough for all to wake up a little if they care about their children etc, that is if they are not selfish, mean, egotistical, spiritually dead, and/or have no morals.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Don't see what the fuss is about?

    I dare say there are a few neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and fundamentalist Muslim extremists who also think that we ought to take a bit more care of the planet. The fact that they agree with the experts (ie scientists) is hardly an issue?

    Next we'll be throwing assertions at Rob McElwee because a drug dealer agrees with his weather forecast for next weekend ......

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    And as you say, 70% of the populace goes to church. I was well aware of the context but no it doesn't alleviate any concern, nor should it. The populace of every country should be given the scientific facts and decisions should be made on these alone. Swaying a VAST part of the population by giving it the religious thumbs, let's unite to save the creation is utter bullonions. Those scientists involved should be ashamed of themselves. Are they so insecure that their research and peer review process doesn't offer enough validation that they have to throw this into the pot too? Have you seen the anti-abortion tactics they apply over there? Bombs, shootings? Godless, heathen women and doctors too are subject to it.

    I firmly believe this is taking the situation way too far, down a dangerous, immoral route. I don't care that science is not defering to religion for validity, I care greatly that science is holding hands with religion to gain support with the masses.

    Then will you also denounce the three religious, but AGW sceptic, scientist I mentioned? I wont hold my breath.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    I really cannot believe how compliant everyone is, have any of you been to the States? Have you experienced the religous fervour over there? It really is no comparison with the religous system, belief, practising ethos over here. I'm staggered how little anyone seems to care about this, agreement with the message of looking after the planet is one thing, no argument from me there, but supporting this stance? Thinking it is of little importance? Scary.

    p.s Dev: if a sceptic had come up with this, I'd be just as damning. This isn't about AGW/sceptic debate, this is manipulation, an altogether more dangerous, insidious thing.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
    Next we'll be throwing assertions at Rob McElwee because a drug dealer agrees with his weather forecast for next weekend ......

    Good point Essan. Not sure if the great McElwee is religion or science in your interpretation though!

    I always thought that Science makes discoveries but doesn't dictate how to live where-as Religion dictates how to live based on doctrines that are not prone to change.

    They are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps Religion is the constraining influence on Scientific advancement. Without a moral code, we would eliminate ourselves (all that has been "created") very quickly.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
    I really cannot believe how compliant everyone is, have any of you been to the States? Have you experienced the religous fervour over there?

    Personally I'm quite happy if some fundamentalist religious types have finally accepted that the Earth isn't a God-given gift for them to do what the h*ll they like with ....... I see it as a positive move!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    I really cannot believe how compliant everyone is, have any of you been to the States? Have you experienced the religous fervour over there? It really is no comparison with the religous system, belief, practising ethos over here. I'm staggered how little anyone seems to care about this, agreement with the message of looking after the planet is one thing, no argument from me there, but supporting this stance? Thinking it is of little importance? Scary.

    p.s Dev: if a sceptic had come up with this, I'd be just as damning. This isn't about AGW/sceptic debate, this is manipulation, an altogether more dangerous, insidious thing.

    Ok, then you should also denounce messers Spencer, McKitrick and Courtney?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
    This isn't about AGW/sceptic debate, this is manipulation, an altogether more dangerous, insidious thing.

    I disagree. I do not think that you are trying to manipulate anyone with this thread.

    You perhaps see religion as the antithesis of science. Is science your "religion"? Are your beliefs based on scientific discovery? If so you will see this document as a contradiction to your viewpoint.

    In fact, I suggest that you view religion as evil (Definition - morally bad; wicked. Harmful or intending to harm. Oxford dictionary.)

    This is perhaps an over-simplification of the situation but it is my interpretation of it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
    I disagree. I do not think that you are trying to manipulate anyone with this thread.

    You perhaps see religion as the antithesis of science. Is science your "religion"? Are your beliefs based on scientific discovery? If so you will see this document as a contradiction to your viewpoint.

    In fact, I suggest that you view religion as evil (Definition - morally bad; wicked. Harmful or intending to harm. Oxford dictionary.)

    This is perhaps an over-simplification of the situation but it is my interpretation of it.

    I did not say I was trying to manipulate anyone. I said, affiliating science to religion is manipulation when it is done to reassure the masses, cajole the populace. Look at history folks, plenty of examples there.

    My religion? Born and brought up C 0f E, sunday school followed by church every Sunday, reading lessons etc. Now? Erm, everyday religion, ethos of life probably more akin to Pagan. Still go to church occasionally, open to the possibility of a God but wouldn't want to give him/her a name. How about you?

    Dev; do any of those folk you mentioned affiliate themselves with religion, use religion to substanciate, validate their science? Link their science with safeguarding creation? If they do, then in my opinion they are wrong too.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    If religion is such a powerful force in American society, and a group of concerned people feel that it is important that the public there recognises that a very important social (and perhaps ethical) issue exists, they have two choices; either address the power of religion and deal with it, or ignore it and risk alienation and disopprobrium via 'smear' campaigning: it seems to me that it is a no-win situation for scientists. This effort might help minimise the damage, but it can do no better than that.

    I think they felt they had to say something; force majeure.

    I also think that this declaration is not (overtly) attempting to use the appeal to authority from religion as an argument, rather, it is trying to point out that, whether your world-view is fundamentally religious or scientific (inasmuch as these are contradictory views) makes no difference; the implications and possible consequences of what is (appears to be) happening to the planet lead us to conclude that action to prevent potential irreparable damage is justifiable, whatever the foundation of your understanding.

    YucK, that's convoluted. Sorry.

    :)P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
    I did not say I was trying to manipulate anyone. I said, affiliating science to religion is manipulation when it is done to reassure the masses, cajole the populace. Look at history folks, plenty of examples there.

    My religion? Born and brought up C 0f E, sunday school followed by church every Sunday, reading lessons etc. Now? Erm, everyday religion, ethos of life probably more akin to Pagan. Still go to church occasionally, open to the possibility of a God but wouldn't want to give him/her a name. How about you?

    I am a practising Roman Catholic who teaches Physics at a Catholic secondary school. My degree is in AstroPhysics. I have never had a problem reconciling religion and science even though my faith has been tested on several occasions.

    Are you more pantheistic than pagan?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

    The quoted figure of 70% regular church attendance over here sounds rather high to me, I would have thought closer to 40% in the USA and 25% in Canada. And about half of those would be attending relatively liberal types of churches. The Roman Catholic church has more or less ignored this issue and you don't find a very strong opinion on climate change one way or the other among Catholics relative to the population.

    The charge of climate change as religion may be understood in the way suggested by some evangelicals, but among conservatives who are not religious, the concept is more of a rhetorical debating point, meant to suggest that climate change has been inserted into the education system in our countries rather more quickly than its complete acceptance or proof might warrant, rather like evolution before it.

    Both theories, evolution and climate change, are attended with sizeable bodies of skeptical dissent, which don't go away after periodic bouts of name calling by their orthodox supporters. This has not been the case with gravitation or the roundness of the earth, because these things are generally accepted by almost everybody. Evolution as presented and climate change as presented have religious and political implications which won't go away just because their supporters earnestly ask everyone to swallow the theories without question.

    That's why it is suggested that climate change is a religion -- there are calls for absolute faith in something a lot of people just can't find materially evident -- and I'm sure its supporters would be the first to recognize how that would be the hallmark of organized religion in general.

    There is, of course, nothing wrong with holding an opinion and raising it to the level of a strongly held belief, but these things have to play out over whatever full measure of time is required for general acceptance. It's a matter of percentages, there will always be some dissenters on any given theory or concept -- the KKK for example still holds the odd meeting here or there, and some people drive without seat belts. But sometimes an idea comes forward that sounds suspiciously like a stalking horse for something much different. Kyoto, for example, reads like a blueprint for dismantling the western economy and pushing China forward, something one would associate more with communism than environmental science, perhaps.

    This is why there is a lot of skepticism about climate change in North America, and frankly, until the climate here changes radically, which it has shown no real signs of doing, people will remain skeptical, and all the self-congratulatory chatter in Europe and the UK won't change that.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    Snowsure: Like I said earlier, I wouldn't like to attach or give a name to any religious beliefs I may hold, never had the desire to seek out like minded people in order to feel I could label myself as one of them; neither have I researched religions in order to identify my thoughts within a particular creed. My thoughts are the ten commandments are not a bad general rule of thumb, I look after my patch of the world, put back what I take out, nourish and replenish and endeavour to go to sleep at the end of the day having tried to do some good and if I haven't achieved that, that day, then to at least rest easy knowing I've done no harm. If you can find a religion which encompasses that, then I guess I'm one of those.

    Roger: interesting post and kind of reassuring. However, I thought I'd look into the numbers and the latest poll I could find doesn't reassure me in the least; 91% of Americans according to this poll, believe in God. Nearly half (48%) reject the theory of evolution and one third (34%) accept the biblical account of Creation. America's a big country, lots of people, so if 91% believe in God and 34% of those believe in Creation; that's an awful lot of people to support the scientific theory of AGW if to believe in it, protects Gods' Creation. There may be greater scepticism in climate change over there but there's a whole lot more religious belief; linking the two is a smart move if you want to motivate the populace.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/page/0/

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

    To put that into context: the USA population in 2006 was, according to official figures: 299,398,484. If you deduct from that the figure of 24.8% for those under 18 then the rough estimate of those who believe in Creation, not evolution is 69,660,685; an awful lot of people; the entire population of the UK is less than that at 60,587,000.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    • August thunderstorms bring the risk of flooding and disruption

      Any rain should be welcome looking at the parched ground but intense downpours aren't enough. Thunderstorms bring the risk of flash flooding as the rain hits the hard, dry ground. Read the full update here

      Netweather forecasts
      Netweather forecasts
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2022-08-16 06:11:14 Valid: 16/08/2022 0600 - 17/08/2022 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - TUES 16TH AUG 2022 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2022-08-15 07:58:06 Valid: 15/08/2022 0600 - 16/08/2022 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - MON 15TH AUGUST 2022 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather 1
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...