Junk Science

Judge science by application of its own method. Those who hoist the banner of science to support political activism on issues like global warming and evolution should be judged on facts and observable data. The scientific method demands that any theory be supportable or refutable on the empirical data.

Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.

When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.

A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.

When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"

Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.

Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".

Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.

It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.

So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.

All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.

Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.