The Internet is abuzz with the revelations that global warming proponents have been… lying, hiding data, and deceiving. The whole notion that ‘climate change’ is an emergency requiring drastic and immediate action now hangs in the balance. I was reminded of a post I wrote last year responding to a global warming skeptic comparing the global warming proponents to creationists. I said that in fact it was the other way around. Today, with ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ in particular being smacked around, it is good to revisit the issue.
Because the raw fact is that the ‘science’ behind global warming is just as shady as the ‘science’ behind macroevolution. Just as we see in this current case where scientists worked not merely to suppress data but also suppress viewpoints, trying to manipulate the peer review process to exclude dissenters and refusing to debate them in order to deprive them of credibility, so too in evolution.
This was exposed by Ben Stein’s Expelled, which I already discussed here.
But there are even more dramatic similarities between the ‘science’ behind evolutionary theory and global warming. It is my hope that when people see how reputable scientists tried to buffalo the entire world, hiding behind ‘consensus,’ and ridiculing those who think other wise–regarding global warming–that they will spot the same patterns of behavior regarding evolution… and approach it with more skepticism.
I’m not saying you should dismiss it altogether. I’m only asking for people to approach it with what ‘free thinkers’ claim they are interested in… skepticism.
What are these dramatic similarities? Well, to start with if you remember what you learned about the scientific method in your high school science courses and compare it with a lot of what passes as ‘science’ today you will spot a stark contrast.
The scientific method, in short: observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat, theorize. We may add to this prediction and falsifiability.
This is a good method. In global warming ‘science’ we have some of these elements. You have observation and measurement of climate data. You have the hypothesis. But you lack the capacity to have experiments and then repeat them so as to exclude variables and such. You object: “But how can you reasonably expect to have experiments at a global scale?” I retort: “So much the worse for the ‘science’ of the question, then.”
In Evolutionary theory there is a failure even at the level of observation, but it shares the same problem of not being experimentally demonstrable. You can’t repeat it. No one can go back in time and see our evolutionary history unfold again (if in fact it did). Thus, you can’t do experiments. You cannot state with any certainty that this happened because of this or that. Moreover–conveniently–because so much time is invoked to help make the whole thing plausible, you cannot even attempt to repeat the steps. In fact, evolutionists will usually insist that if you did it all again, it would have happened differently.
Evolutionary theory only predicts observing more microevolution–which no one disputes. It cannot predict any macroevolutionary outcomes in the future. It can provide no repeatable experiments which can get us, under observation, from ‘simple’ organisms of the past to complex ones today.
Evolution is not an empirical study at all, but a historical one. New pieces are discovered and arranged. You can no more repeat the evolution of the horse then you can repeat the battle of Waterloo. One merely hopes that more data will emerge that can be plugged into the equation. You may say at some point that you think you’ve figured out how it went down, but let us at least be honest: this was the historical method, not the scientific method.
Today, ‘science’ really has become ‘what scientists do.’ A tautology, if you didn’t notice. Scientists today have added to the ‘method’ in two important ways that were probably absent in your high school science class.
First, what should be methodological naturalism is now unabashed philosophical naturalism. Obviously, if you exclude intelligent agency from consideration as an explanation then you will never find evidence for intelligent agency.
This is self-evident. Eight year olds understand it. On this framework, it is saying absolutely nothing to say that intelligent design is not science–it is another tautology–science is defined to exclude it.
The second addition is ‘explanatory power.’ In short, what passes as ‘science’ today is not always (and virtually never in evolution) what is demonstrable regarding the hypothesis, but rather what it explains.
Evolutionary theory is chiefly favored for its alleged explanatory power, not because of its experimental corroboration. There just isn’t any other way to explain the origins and development of life on this planet–if you are hell bent on excluding non-materialistic or guided explanations. And since it is favored because of its explanatory power, not its experimental successes, it can never be disproved. One merely concocts another way to frame the ‘explanation’ so that it can account for new facts.
In this way, we see more parallels with the ‘science’ of global warming.
Global warming–or its new incarnation, ‘climate change’–is not the kind of thing that can be experimentally verified. It is an explanatory theory in which data is wrestled into. Are there more hurricanes than normal? Climate change. Are there less hurricanes than normal? Climate change. Is it warmer than normal? Global warming. Is it colder than normal? Global warming.
So no matter what, Global warming is ‘confirmed.’ The only thing that ever changes is the nature of the explanation. The exact same thing happens in evolution. Note that no new ‘human’ fossil ancestor ever disproves human evolution–it only revises the ‘current understanding.’
In fact, this flexibility is often lauded as the hallmark of science itself. It should always be open to new ideas they say… but interestingly, for truly scientific matters, things that can be empirically scrutinized such as the rate of gravitational acceleration or the speed of light… there is a definite inflexibility, since the nature of the phenomena doesn’t allow it. Evolutionary theory, like ‘Climate Change’ can change on a dime, and this is never a reason to doubt them in the first place, and always more evidence for them.
And don’t you dare challenge it or you will be run out of your job or have your articles excluded from ‘peer reviewed’ journals!
This is a superficial treatment of the question and I hope no one expects an exhaustive explanation and defense of all of my claims here. All I ask is for fair consideration, and if finding out that reputable government funded scientists have been actively concealing the truth in one area-0climate studies–doesn’t prompt you to consider the possibility that the same thing is happening in other areas, I can’t help you.
A final word: invariably, someone will jump in to comment and make blathering insults about how creationism doesn’t meet these standards or how intelligent design is unscientific, etc. Resist this urge. It is childish and immature. If evolutionary theory cannot stand on its own two feet based on the evidence, without being compared to the merits (or lack of merit) of other theories then this shows just how weak the theory is. Moreover, it reveals something about the speaker. Namely, it shows he is a child, for only children constantly stoop to the argument, “Oh yea, but you…”
If your explanation sucks, it doesn’t become true just because you think my explanation sucks, too. So grow up.