googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Science or Ideology?

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Science or Ideology?

Lately, some folks on the left have caught me off guard. I’m used to being called all kinds of names because I believe in the creation described in Genesis. But what has surprised me is that Global Warming has become a tenet in the left’s religion of secular humanism.

I’ve already said in other posts that, to say you don’t believe in evolution is to be labeled a stupid, ignorant, lying, science-hater. It doesn’t matter how much you know about the theory of evolution; if you don’t believe it, you’re just stupid. What kills me is that, even if you can’t cite one piece of evidence to support evolution, as long as you believe in it you’re “welcomed into the light.” But now, rejecting the global warming hysteria invites just as much scorn as rejecting evolution. So when I candidly admitted that there may be a warming trend but I’m not convinced there’s cause for alarm, I wasn’t prepared for the ridicule. “You’re a stupid, ignorant, lying, science-hater.” Now, where have I heard that before? //RKBentley scratching head//

What struck me as curious was the similarity of the rhetoric. If you doubt evolution, you’re a moron; if you doubt global warming, you’re a moron. They stand by the “science” that supports their doctrine and jealously guard it as their gospel. Any fact presented which might contradict their belief is disqualified from being possible and is labeled, “pseudoscience.” It’s difficult to debate someone about science if he only considers only those facts that support his view as true; everything else is a lie. So I’m proven to be ignorant, stupid, or lying for no other reason than I just disagree.

The practice of attacking your opponent, rather than rebutting his argument, is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Think about it; if I said, “Only idiots believe in evolution,” what kind of argument have I made except to call my opponents a name? There’s also the true-Scotsman argument, which goes something like this, “All credible scientists believe global warming is occurring.” Then when I point out that there are scientists who don’t believe it’s occurring, the alarmists respond, “Well then they’re just quacks because all credible scientists believe global warming is occurring.”

Both the ad hominem and the true-Scotsman arguments are empty arguments and are entirely without merit. Yet these seem to be the first line of defense when anyone dares question the religion of the left. I think it’s demonstrative of the weakness in their position. Remember both of these the next time you listen to or engange in a debate about either issue and see if you don't hear them being used.

Let me pause here and point out that there may very well be a warming trend. But how can we be sure? How long have we been gathering data? Former president, Bill Clinton, once said the ‘90’s was the warmest decade in 500 years. How do we know that’s true? Did Columbus steal the meteorological records from the Native Americans as he was raping their land? Were the Aborigines meticulously recording the average temperature in Australia at this time? And who was in the South Pole tracking the temperature there? I’m sorry but there is no way we can know the temperatures from around the world 500, 200, or even 100 years ago as precisely as we can know them today. And it should be pointed out that 30 years ago all the alarm was over global cooling.

But there’s another thing the warming-alarmists don’t stop to consider. Al Gore says, “The earth is sick. It has a fever.” Doesn’t that presuppose that he knows what the temperature should be? Well, what is it? Is it what we have at this very moment or should it be just a little cooler or a little warmer? In case Mr. Gore is not aware, there was once an ice age. If he had been alive at the end of the ice age, and ran around like Chicken Little shrieking about “global warming” he’d have looked a little foolish. I think he looks a little foolish now.

I don’t think anyone still holds to the idea that Ronald Reagan caused the last ice age (right after he caused the extinction of the dinosaurs) but they're quick to point out that we're causing global warming. The earth has warmed and cooled in the past and it was all without the help of anything we humans have done. It’s just part of the natural processes of the earth. Why should I believe we’re causing it now? Why does anyone think we’re able to stop it? I think the Herculean effort some people would have us spend would all be for naught. We will have suffered tremendous cost and discomfort for nothing. Here’s an idea, let’s stop trying to halt global warming and put that effort into preparing for a warmer earth.

I’m not sure why the left has adopted global warming into the tenets of its faith but I have my suspicions. It all goes back to the “being one with nature” mentality of environmentalism: a rock, a tree, a flower, a bird, a person - it’s all the same. It’s pantheism. Except to them, humans are inferior to the rest of nature. If an animal kills another animal, that’s the order of things. If a person cuts down a tree to build a house, he’s destroying the environment. The earth is wonderful and if something is wrong (in this case, it’s getting warmer) then humans must be the culprits. Humans are to blame for everything, and humans that live in the US are the worst of the lot.

The Bible talks about this very attitude in Romans 1. It says that some people worship the thing that is created rather than the Creator. In their religion, nature is their god and there’s no room for the God of nature. All views besides their own are heresy.

No comments: