Perhaps you should define what you mean by the theory. I am familiar with various versions of natural law in philosophy and as legal argument. But even there users of the term may mean different things, as some will be referring to the Bible and others to natural science and survival needs.
My guess is that this somehow has to do with a philosophy course. Is that correct? In any case, you should really explain the realm in which you ask this: science, legal or philosophy. And you should define your particular definition of natural law. As is, your question is far to vague to be answered with any intelligence.
Natural Law is not a theory. Natural Law is what nature is built upon. Global warming is a natural occurrence no matter if it is caused by humans or not. This is where the science itself is in jeopardy. It acts as if humans are a virus or are unnatural when its own theories are showing that humans have grown through evolution and are totally natural. ****** shows his true scientific arrogance by rejecting any faith in the idea that there is a higher intelligence than science. Faith is vital to science, but Global Warming is mostly misdirected at showing humans as the cause when science clearly identifies that there are many other factors that affect the climate and temperatures.
<
Mind boggling.
Though it is probably too late, it's best to keep Science and religion as separated as possible. Even better is to drop religion all together.
