Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that “we’re dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational”.
Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”
I don’t know who this Plimer guy is so can’t speak to the man’s experience dealing with creationists who, ‘when challenged, become vicious and irrational.’ I have yet to meet a vicious creationist and of course, ‘irrational’ is in the eye of the beholder to some degree- if the litmus test for rationality is one’s view on evolutionary theory then that amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning ie, that is what is irrational.
Ironically, Plimer sees similarities between global warming proponents and creationists, when he really should see similarities between global warming proponents and evolutionists. The creationist example is wholly inapt even on his own terms- by his view, creationism is based on ‘holy books’ but global warming, we are told, is backed by hard, irrefutable science. In other words, ‘global warming’ is being defended by his own ilk, not by fruity creationists.
And I would be willing to say that global warming probably is backed by ‘hard, irrefutable science’ … when by ‘science’ we mean the bastardized and philosophically driven ‘methodology’ that passes as science today in contrast to true science which actually relies on empirical demonstration.
In short, Plimer is merely seeing in climatology the same kind of ‘science’ at work in evolutionary theory. This then is the irony: even the self-professed skeptics aren’t skeptical of everything.
Moreover, isn’t there some kind of moral to be drawn here? In so many cases evolution is advanced on the grounds that ‘so many scientists believe it’ and this is identical to the case often made for global warming: ‘How can so many scientists be wrong?’ And yet according to Plimer, they are wrong. Surely if so many scientists can be wrong regarding global warming, perhaps they might be wrong about evolutionary theory? Is one even allowed to consider the possibility? Or does even thinking about it make one ‘vicious and irrational’?
The vicious and rabid irrational suppression is all on the side of evolutionists, I’m afraid. One can hardly see how it is otherwise, since Creationists are the ones arguing for ‘equal time’ whereas evolutionists are doing everything in the power to make sure that only their perspective is heard. This is undeniable. The difference here of course is that the evolutionists believe that they are justified in suppressing other viewpoints. Nonetheless, it is only they doing the suppressing.
More evidence of the rabid irrationality at the back of evolutionary theory is the fact that every single dissenter is automatically labeled a ‘creationist.’ Despite the fact that Dembski and Behe etc are all essentially old earthers, generally accept the broad notion of evolution- just not the unguided part- and have deliberately designed ‘intelligent design’ so as to be indifferent to the name and source of the designer, do you think that this has given them any kind of credibility with the scientific establishment? Of course not. They are openly labeled as creationists in disguise.
Do you think Francis Collins escaped scorn after announcing he was a Christian since he is a stout evolutionist and old earther? Heaven’s no. Richard Dawkins openly mocks him in his Delusion.
The upshot of all of this is that you literally cannot dissent from evolutionary theory without being labeled as ‘vicious and irrational.’ You cannot dissent even a little bit. In the famous words of Richard Dawkins, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Richard Dawkins, the same Dawkins who mocked Francis Collins as delusional.
So, Mr. Plimer, I welcome your efforts. If you succeed, you will prove that the scientific establishment- even nearly all of them- can be quite wrong, and can be driven by other interests and agendas that have nothing to do with the ‘facts on the ground.’ So long as one cares about the ‘facts on the ground’ anyway.
For more discussion about who precisely is ‘silencing critics’ I direct you to another blog entry on a similar theme. For Mr. Plimer is quite wrong: the only people silencing critics today are the global warming proponents… and evolutionists.