Stop spouting facts... the science is settled!

According to Wikipedia, scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Followers of scientism tend to be zealots, more devout even than the average followers of traditional religions. What makes them especially stubborn is that they tend to not think of their beliefs as their “religion;” instead, they think scientism is simply the default way of thinking for any person and so they cannot comprehend any argument made from a different point of view. To them, if something can't be examined scientifically, it can't be true.

Now, you would think that people who practically worship science would welcome scientific debate. They say they do. Actually, they brag that they do. In the new Cosmos series, Neil deGrass Tyson offered these five, simple rules for science:

(1) Question authority.

(2) Think for yourself.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

(5) Remember: you could be wrong.

Ignore the self-contradiction going on here – like, how can someone test the idea that we should test ideas by evidence? My point in citing these “rules” is to show how skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of science. According to Tyson, I'm not supposed to accept a conclusion just because someone in authority says it's true. I'm supposed to think for myself. Right? I could be wrong but maybe it's the person making the claim who is wrong.

There are real scientists who are skeptics. At the risk of sounding cliché, scientific advancement often comes when people think outside of the box. Science Alert once published a list of 8 scientific papers that were rejected during peer review before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Obviously, these authors were on to something and the scientific establishment just couldn't see it. How often has one radical idea, one that other scientists may have thought sounded crazy, turned out to be true? Maybe we should ask Galileo.

Devout members of scientism aren't skeptics. They claim to be but they aren't. They blindly follow the majority opinion without question. You can often identify them by their frequent use of the phrase, “The science is settled.” To them, truth is whatever is accepted by a majority of scientists. Anyone who disagrees is considered a heretic. Actually, they don't call them heretics – they call them, “science deniers” but, in scientism, it means the same thing. Doubters of some scientific theory aren't ever called “skeptics” or “free thinkers;” they're “deniers.”

Let me give you a few examples of scientism's doctrine. The first is obviously evolution. I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard rabid evolutionists defend their theory by saying no credible scientist denies that evolution happened. Note the use of the word “credible,” but never mind blatant No True Scotsman fallacy. Truth is not decided by popular vote. Evolutionists often refuse to debate creationists on the grounds that “the science is settled,” “there is no debate among scientists whether evolution is true,” and debating the theory with a creationists gives the impression there is still doubt over the theory. Followers of scientism want to squelch any dissent over evolution by suing public schools who want to “teach the difficulties,” rejecting any creationist paper submitted for peer review, and even protesting a privately funded, religious organization like the Creation Museum.

Another long standing doctrine of this godless faith is climate change. Once upon a time, it was called “global warming” but after decades of no noticeable increase in the global, mean temperature, they had to replace “warming” with the much more ambiguous term, “change.” Actually, none of the dire predictions made by these alarmists have happened. In 2008, ABC aired a video montage showing all the terrible things that would happen by 2015 because of climate change: New York flooding, hundreds of miles of scorched earth, and skyrocketing food and fuel prices. I remember 2015. It was nothing like the predictions made by the video but followers of scientism aren't embarrassed by their failed predictions; The “science is settled” concerning climate change and bad things are going to happen unless we do something now. //RKBentley shakes his head//

Bill Nye was recently embarrassed by Tucker Carlson when he tried to pull that “the science is settled” crap. Carlson was asking basic questions about climate change and Nye was obviously making up the answers. Before we spend trillions of dollars on this “crisis,” we need to have some answers: the most fundamental question is, is there even any warming? The trend for the last few decades says no. If it is happening, to what extent are humans causing it? If we could stop warming, should we? What is the earth's temperature supposed to be? Every air-breathing animal produces carbon dioxide. Humans produce about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Even if we converted the entire world to 100% emission-free energy, humans will still produce billions of pounds of CO2 every day just by breathing. How can that be bad? Plants require CO2. What will happen to our forests if we could reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? These are legitimate questions but they are heresy to dogma-driven zealots like Nye. A real scientist on CNN recently brought up some of these points and Nye scolded CNN for, “having one climate change skeptic, and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change.”

The most recent political discussion which followers of scientism have weighed in on is the transgender issue. Scientists now “know” that things like gender identity or even our biological sex aren't immutable but exist on a spectrum. You would think that after 6,000 years of human history, the science would at least be settled about who is a male and who is a female. Wrong! Now we're being told that doctors sometimes got it wrong when they checked “male” or “female” on a birth certificate. I'm a 51 year old white guy. Why can't I identify as a 65 year old person and start receiving social security? Why can't I say I'm a black guy and maybe qualify for affirmative action programs? But I can say I'm a woman and folks like Nye will rush to defend my delusion as being normal, usual, and healthy. Anyone who disagrees is a hate-filled, homophobic, bigot. Colleges are adopting strict policies requiring the use of gender-neutral pronouns. If I call a female, “she,” suddenly I'm the one who has the problem. Several years ago, I wrote about California's ban on gay-conversion therapy for minors. Really? So after little Johnny was abused by an uncle, he seeks help because he doesn't like the sexual feelings he now has toward men and the only acceptable response is, “You're gay, Johnny, you can't change it. You'd better learn to live with it!”

Bill Nye has said that being a creationist suppresses critical thinking. I believe Nye's religion of scientism is a far worse assault on critical thinking than being a creationist could ever be. He does not want debate. “Science deniers” must be ridiculed and insulted until they have lost all credibility. Maybe they should even be put in prison. Nye and folks like him have their minds are made up. Stop confusing them with facts. The science is settled.

Climate change is now an interstellar problem!

It's sad but true. Alarmists blame nearly every disaster on climate change. Hurricane Matthew? Climate change! A drought in California? Climate change! Steve Erwin getting stabbed in the heart by a sting ray? Climate change! (Yes, I really heard someone say that). But even I didn't know climate change had become a problem of galactic proportions. First, some back story.

A few years ago, I wrote about the Drake Equation. Introduced in 1961, the Drake Equation is a formula secular scientists have used to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations that might exist in our galaxy. Starting with a couple of assumptions, all grounded in evolutionary ideas about the age of the universe and the origin of life, some scientists speculate that our galaxy teems with extraterrestrial life – as many as 100,000,000 civilizations! Convinced that there is life out there, groups like SETI have spent 3 decades and millions of dollars trying to find evidence for it. So far, they've found nothing.

The reason we haven't found life beyond earth was the subject of a DailyMail.com article, recently. They described the problem this way:

It is one of astronomy’s great mysteries: Why, given the estimated 200bn-400bn stars and at least 100bn planets in our galaxy, are there no signs of alien intelligence?.... [A]ny life form with rocket technology could colonise the galaxy in a few million years, so why wasn’t there any evidence already?

If you start with the assumption that life will evolve on any planet that has liquid water; if you assume simple, reproducing cells will evolve over time to become more complex; if you assume there has been billions of years of time for life to evolve; then, yes, I can see why secular scientists are scratching their heads. There would have to be millions of intelligent civilizations out there. And given that our technology has virtually exploded in the last 100 years, it's hard to imagine what we will be able to do in the next 100 years. An intelligent life form that harnessed electricity 1,000,000 years ago could very possibly fly across the galaxy by now.

British physicist, Brian Cox, believes he knows why we haven't found any extraterrestrial life, and even says it's unlikely we ever will.

Professor Cox’s suggestion is that the rate of advances in science and engineering in any type of alien civilisation may outstrip the development of political institutions able to manage them, leading to a self-destruction model. So technology that allows the generation of power but produces greenhouse gases, or nuclear weapons, may destroy civilizations within a few thousand years of being developed, which could threaten ours too....

‘One solution to the Fermi paradox is that it is not possible to run a world that has the power to destroy itself and that needs global collaborative solutions to prevent that. It may be that the growth of science and engineering inevitably outstrips the development of political expertise, leading to disaster.’

There you have it! There are no aliens out there because they've all fallen victim to climate change. Burning fossil fuels and having nuclear weapons inevitably leads to self annihilation. It's already happened across the galaxy! It's just too bad the aliens didn't have the Democrat Party forcing them to lay down their guns and start using “green technology.”

I can't make this stuff up, folks! And they say creationists are science deniers? Please! From the same article, co-conspirator, Prof. Forshaw commented, “These seem outlandish ideas but they are based on solid evidence and reasoning.” Outlandish? Yes. Solid evidence and reasoning? Please, Dr. Forshaw, share this “evidence” with me. Have you found the ruins of an advance civilization somewhere? Have you intercepted radio signals of planets calling for help because they're on the verge of destruction? Have you found the escape pod Jor-El used to launch his son into space just before Krypton exploded? Come on, people! This isn't science; it's science fiction!

By the way, I believe there is no sign of life beyond our planet because there hasn't been millions of years, life hasn't formed on other planets, and so there's no chance that life evolved anywhere.

Now, please excuse me while I laugh my head off.

Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

My recent visitor, Carvin, has given me a lot of points to discuss. In a reply to him, I mentioned I would make use of some of his comments to write future blog posts. Many of the points he raised are of interest to everyone.

His first comment was to a post I had written titled, “And You Think We're Embarrassing?” You can read the post for yourself, of course, but my main point was how certain liberals (like Pam Platt of the Courier Journal) seem embarrassed by Bible believing Christians while liberals seem to embrace outrageous antics like those seen at Gay Pride parades. In his response to my point, Carvin said:

[M]ost liberals are perfectly fine when you limit your trouble to an opinion which you express. Your certainly do run the risk of being considered homophobic, but that comes with the territory of the fundamentalist view of homosexuality- it is, in fact, homophobic. It is a Biblical interpretation that is used in the oppression and control of non-hetero people. Again, just having a view on this is still fine. Most liberals would be quite happy if the fundamentalist view was kept within house- that is, if you feel it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, this is fine: just don't force anyone else to live by your standard.

If liberalism were just someone's opinion, I would happily agree with Carvin. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – even a wrong opinion. Liberals are wrong about a lot of things and I can live with them being wrong. The real problem, though, is that liberals aren't content with expressing their opinions. Liberals are elitists who not only think they know what's best for every, they aggressively seek ways to impose their standards on everyone else.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? I've been writing this blog for almost 7 years now and I have more than a few examples of this occurring. Let me remind you of just a few that I've already discussed.

Compelling Christians to comply with secular standards probably occurs most often in public schools. In June, 2006, valedictorian, Brittan McComb, was asked to give a speech to her graduating class. She was a Christian, and wanted to give thanks to God for His role in her life. School officials warned her to omit references to God and on the day of her graduation, when she began making reference to God, the school officials turned off her mic. This was her speech talking about her achievements yet school officials didn't think she should be thanking God. I guess it would have been OK if she thanked Oprah.

When the Creation Museum opened, a group called DefCon attempted to thwart their efforts. A board member of DefCon was also an elected, public school official who encouraged public school teachers to sign a petition against the museum. What ever happened to the supposed “separation of church and state”?

Nature wrote an article called, “Dealing with Design” wherein it explained to educators how they should teach students to reconcile their religious beliefs (as in the creation account in Genesis) with “science” (meaning “evolution”). This is not just teaching evolution; it's an active attempt to dissuade a student away from his biblical belief and accept a secular belief.

Do I even need to talk about the National Center For Science Education? The groups stated purpose for existing is to combat a belief in creation among students. More recently, the group also has been recruited to combat doubters in global warming.

But of course, liberals don't just limit their attempts to control to just students. In 2001, a lesbian couple sued two Christian doctors who had refused to provide artificial insemination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple was able to get the service elsewhere but sued in order to punish the Christian doctors for not complying to the liberal lesbians' standards.

Because of his support of traditional marriage, the president of Chick-fil-A was told by an Chicago alderman, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” So, in this case, who is forcing their standard on whom?

Obamacare is forcing all employers, including businesses owned by Christians, to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, regardless of the employers' religious objections. Not only is the employer's right to practice his religion made subservient to the employee's unenumerated “right” to an abortion, the employer is ordered by law to pay for it!

There are even more that I have cited on my blog and many, many more that I haven't. People can't buy 32 oz colas in NY because they might get fat. McDonald's can't put toys in their happy meals because parents can't say no to their kids. School officials search students' lunchboxes to make sure parents are doing their job. Parents can't have school vouchers because they might send their kids to white supremacy schools (I'm not kidding). Need I remind Carvin that he himself has endorsed compelling business owners to pay higher wages because the liberal thinks the wage should be more. The list goes on.

When liberals think something is right, they don't just talk about it. They don't just express their opinion about it. They want to force people to comply with it. They do it because they think they're the experts and we just don't know how to take care of ourselves. See this video and hear it for yourself. Time after time after time, liberals are happy to compel people to conform to the liberal standard. I don't blog about liberals just because they annoy me (though they do). I blog about liberals because they are a threat to liberty.

He Didn't Say It – But I Will

Now that he's topping the polls as the current frontrunner in the Republican primaries, Rick Santorum has become the new target of the liberal media. Over the last couple of days, much hay has been made over Santorum's comment that Obama's agenda was driven by “some phoney ideal – some phoney theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible – a different theology but no less a theology.” The alternative media (MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etc) has seized upon that as an attack on Obama's religious views and are crying foul.

You can watch the full context of the remarks here. It's easy for people with limited command of the vocabulary to pounce upon the word “theology” and see it as a discussion about Christian religion but from the full context, it's rather obvious to rational people that the “theology” he intended is that of radical environmentalism. Santorum even spelled that out for those media reporters who confronted him about it. He further clarified that he does not question Obama's Christian faith but, even now, the bias-driven reporters on the left continue to misrepresent him.

The ironic thing in all this is that there really is a big question about Obama's faith. Let's face it, here's a man who has been the President of the United States for more than three years. He's in the public's eye daily. There is a camera on him nearly every moment of the day that he steps foot out of the door. Everywhere he goes, everything he says, everything he does is reported in excruciating detail. Yet after all this time, he's still not able to convincingly persuade people that he's not a Muslim! Isn't that odd?

Now, certainly I'm not trying to brag but I will use myself as an example. Anyone who has known me for any length of time beyond a casual meeting knows that I'm a Christian. It's simple things that give it away. He will hear me talking about my faith, he will see me reading the Bible, he will see me going to church, maybe he will even read my blog! It would be impossible for anyone, after 3 years, to suspect me of being a Muslim. That's they way it should be. Acts 1:8 says, “ye shall be witnesses unto me.”

What do we know about our President's faith? I know that he never bothered to join a church after moving to Washington. I know that over the prior decade or more that he claimed to have attended “Reverend” Wright's church, he says he never once heard any of the “reverend's” incendiary remarks making it unlikely he truly attended. I know that he's radically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-many other things that seem contrary to Christian values. I know that on at least two occasions, he misquoted the Declaration of Independence by saying, “We are endowed.... with certain unalienable rights” - omitting the words “by our Creator” even though they are in Declaration and were on his teleprompter! I know that in his last thanksgiving proclamation, he gave thanks to Alaskan Natives, American Indians, and US veterans before mentioning giving thanks to God. Oh, and I know that he's a bald-faced liar.

Jesus said that we can judge people by their fruits (Matthew 7:16,20). There's nothing about the President's life that convinces me he's a Christian. His blatant lack of fruit belies any occasional reference to God or the Bible. So let me be clear: I do not believe the President Obama is a Christian. Senator Santorum may not say that – but I will.

Science Nazis: Part Deux

I ordinarily try to keep my posts to about two typed pages. You might think that sounds easy because whenever I write on a topic, I seldom have trouble deciding what to say about it. Instead, I usually have trouble deciding what to leave out. The consequence of this is that no matter how well I may (or may not) have made a point, I'm usually unsatisfied with the end product. There's always more I wished I'd said. I had not intended to make this a two part post but it seems I've stirred up little controversy of my own with my first post. So, I'm going to add a few more comments that I could have said in my first post.

For what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about global warming. First, I'm a little puzzled why some scientists are so alarmed about a slight increase in the average global temperature over the last century or so. Don't most of these people also believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? If that were true, then a century or two isn't a long enough period of time to be statistically significant. It's less than blip. Such a small sample is not sufficient to establish a trend but even assuming we can identify a trend how confident should we be in the measurements anyway? 100 years ago we had no satellites, no weather stations in Antarctica, or a fraction of the technology available to us now. Bill Clinton once said the 90's was the warmest decade of the last 500 years. Really? So when Columbus arrived in North America in 1492, did he ask the natives to begin recording temperature changes? I'm sure Captain Cook got the Aborigines busy in Australia but who was measuring the temperature at the poles about this time? Any warming trend seen in our measurements could be nothing more than more accurate measurements.

Secondly, I would like to point out that most people agree there was at least one ice age in the past. Do global warming alarmists lament the disappearance of glaciers from the lower 48 states? Certainly that warming trend wasn't the result of human activity – or did the Neanderthal equivalent of Al Gore run around telling other people to stop cooking their food because the fires were melting the ice? If there have been periods of cooling and warming in the past, why are some people surprised to see it happening now (assuming that it is happening)?

And speaking of Al Gore, this brings me to my final point: Al Gore once said that the earth was sick – “it has a fever”. Doesn't such a statement presuppose that we know what the ideal temperature of the earth should be. Well, what is it? Was the earth at its ideal temperature 100 or so years ago before the supposed trend began? Is it what the temperature is right now? Was the earth at its ideal temperature at the peak of the last ice age? Maybe the earth is heading toward the temperature it is “supposed” to be. And, of course, if warming and cooling is the usual condition of the earth over its (alleged) billions of years history, then our herculean efforts to reverse the current warming trend is for naught. Our efforts would be better spent preparing for life in a warmer world.

By the way, maybe a warmer world wouldn't be so bad. I hear people talking about “greenhouse gases” but do they understand that plants grow like crazy in greenhouses? Perhaps we could grow more food all year around. Maybe a more temperate climate would help us turn uninhabitable deserts into lush gardens. Maybe the polar caps could be turned into farm land.

Of course, many people disagree with me. I know because they've told me so; rather, I've been called, “a stupid, ignorant, lying, science-hater.” But tell me the truth: in spite of our disagreements, am I really being unreasonable by just asking these questions or having these doubts? I've asked these questions before and so have many others and I've not heard satisfactory answers. In many cases, I've not been given any answer. So is there something wrong with doubting? Even more than that, what is wrong with disagreeing?

This then, brings me back to the point of my post – the regime of the science Nazis. You see, to them, discussion is only allowed in the scientific community. Lay people (i.e. the masses) must comply with scientific consensus. You cannot question the establishment. You cannot hold personal beliefs contradictory to their agenda.

Ask yourself this: why exactly have they cast their lot so strongly one-sided in this debate? This isn't a matter of “religion in schools,” which is a criticism that has been raised against creationism. People who are suspect of climate change are objecting to the conclusions of some scientists but they're not objecting for religious reasons. There are things they're not convinced about. Some people don't believe there's a warming trend, or that it's man-made, or they may believe spending billions of dollars to reverse what is occurring naturally would be a huge waste of resources. These are scientific questions. These are political questions. They're not religious questions. Then why does the quasi-scientific group NCSE and others like them seek to squelch the debate?

Remember that the Nature article said, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” Assuming that statistic is 100% accurate, what is the controversy? Are these educators so elite that they feel they must bring in the big guns to figure out how to keep people from disagreeing with them? Scott said their group is not a political think-tank. That's a lie. Their group is nothing else but a think-tank seeking ways to advance a liberal agenda. In the case of climate change, they have thrown their hat into the ring of a controversial, political issue and seek to equip educators with arguments to silence opposition. Would we stand still if an economics teacher sought advice from China on how to deal with his students who feel capitalism is superior to socialism?

If you are not convinced, let me ask also why educators believe it is a “threat” that school boards ask that they “teach the controversy”? If up to 1/3 of the teachers have been challenged about a controversial issue, then obviously a sizable percentage of the public questions it. As I asked in my reply to Steven J's comment, “Is it really better to teach kids to simply trust the overwhelming majority of scientists rather than teach them to consider both sides of an controversial issue like global warming?” Apparently these schools think so and so are not interested in presenting the evidence but rather want to allow kids to hear only a single view of the evidence. I would expect schools to be objective and noncommittal in such divisive issues. For school boards to ask teachers to present both sides of a controversial issue is only a threat if someone is afraid of students hearing both sides. Let me also remind you that it is precisely the job of the school boards and parents in the community to establish school curriculum. No matter how enlightened they think they are, it is not a “right” of the establishment to demand students be taught only what the scientific elite deems to be correct.

I don't mind having a discussion about global warming. I very much mind schools resorting to Scott and her ilk to figure out ways to end discussion. That's not an education. It's indoctrination.

Science Nazis

That's right. I said it. Some people are science Nazis. They are Nazis in the sense that they are militant about their scientific conclusions and feel perfectly just in forcing the “ignorant” masses into compliance through propaganda or whatever means possible. The Joseph Goebbels of the movement is Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Before I begin, let me say that I may be annoyed but I am not unhinged. Many times in the past, I have read comments by evolutionists who, I am sure, were foaming at the mouth as they wrote. It's typical for people with this attitude to argue by insult. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I sincerely believe that Eugenie Scott is a propagandist as are many others like her.

OK, now to the meat of my “rant.”

Nature.com recently published a piece titled, “Evolution advocate turns to climate change.” The subtitle of the article says, “Education centre known for battling creationists aims to help science teachers convey understanding of global warming.” It's interesting that they use the term, “battling creationists.” I think the subtitle conveys the general impression held by the scientific community of the NCSE's true agenda as being militantly anti-creationist. They are not just concerned about keeping “religion” out of science education in schools, they are battling creationists wherever they are found. This has long been demonstrated by Scott's years-long crusade against the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis.

AiG has always admitted that they are not interested in changing public school curriculum. Like myself, they do not want public school teachers (especially those who might be unbelieving) teaching the Bible to our kids. This is the job of parents and the Church. Also, the Creation Museum is a private institution. It was built entirely with donated dollars and does not receive – nor ever received – any type of public grant or funding. Why then does Scott, and others of her ilk, concern herself with them? The reason is simple: it's because she loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes in creation.

In the Nature article, reporter Susan Young highlights the same attitude toward global warming. Young begins her article lamenting that, in the same way some students have rejected the theory of evolution, some students are also rejecting the idea of global warming (or man-made global warming). She says that Scott has chosen to intervene because of the “entreaties from educators and textbook authors.” The article quotes Scott as saying, “I think we can make an important contribution. If teachers understand that there is a place that they can go to for help, we can use some of the expertise that we’ve gained over the years dealing with evolution to apply to this related problem.”

Well, first off, one might ask how is evolution related to climate change? During any discussion, if a creationist happens to mention something like the Big Bang, the evolutionist is quick to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (cosmology v. biology). Here, though. Scott says two unrelated sciences (biology and meteorology) share a related problem. In her mind, the “problem” is that there are people who don't fall lock-step into established, scientific consensus.  Her's is a political agenda - not a scientific one.

According to the article, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” What is even more alarming is that “[s]ome school boards and state legislators have threatened to require educators to ‘teach the controversy’ about climate change — a term coined in relation to evolution that amounts to presenting a scientific theory as one of various possible viewpoints.”

Oh my goodness! You mean there are actually school boards out there who want educators to tell their students that some people – maybe even some scientists – disagree with their theory?! I can see why Scott is up in arms. (I am using sarcasm in case it isn't obvious).  Honestly, I can't see a "controversy" in teaching students to be skeptical.  In the case of global warming, I believe there is more dissent among scientists about the issue than there is concerning creation.  However, Scott is a propagandist and she sees it as her job to sway the masses to the desired point of view.

Scott believes the solution to this imagined problem is “helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change.” This is the crux of the issue. It's the elitism of the scientific establishment or “truth by consensus.” Scott believes that the science is settled. Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept climate change, we know that it's true so dissent is no longer allowed. Her approach is cleverly worded but it's little more than a thinly veiled “appeal to authority.”

I wonder how Scott might have behaved a few centuries ago when Galileo was introducing ideas that upset the scientific establishment. Would she have said, “Look people, the science is settled on this – Ptolemy was right”? Even well established science can still be wrong. Most scientists will admit this. Still, certain elitists only allow debate within the scientific community. Lay people are not allowed to have an opinion other than then current consensus of the establishment.

What is most amusing about the article is this disclaimer:

The statement also says that the NCSE will not take a position on what, if anything, should be done to counteract global warming or mitigate its effects. “What to do about it ranges widely and gets outside of the strict science and into policy issues in which many, many variables are going to have to be considered,” says Scott. “We are not a policy think tank; we don’t have expertise in this area.”

Wait a minute! They don't have expertise in this area? Why exactly, then, is she taking a side on this issue? On the one hand, they claim not to know enough to recommend a solution but on the other hand, they know enough to know it's absolutely true and students don't just need to be taught about it but need to believe it. I know why they are interested. Even though their expertise is not in global warming, Scott is still commenting on her area of expertise – propaganda!

Is Shark Hybridization “Evolution in Action”

Scientists are excited about finding hybrid sharks off the coast of Australia. Lead researcher, Jess Morgan, said of the discovery, “This is evolution in action.” You can read the article (here) but here's the gist of the story:

The Australian black-tip shark can live only in tropical waters. The common black-tip shark (described as the Australian black-tip's “cousin”) can live in more temperate water. Scientist have found about 57 specimens of hybrids (the offspring of a mating between different species) of the Australian black-tip and common black-tip. The hybrids can live in the cooler waters. One spin that article suggested is that hybridization is helping the Australian black-tip adapt to “climate change.” That's fodder for another post.

Anyway, is this an example of “evolution in action”? If by “evolution” one simply means “change,” then this is certainly an example of change. However, there is no “evolution” of the type that could change a bird into dinosaur. The article is very interesting and there's a lot we can learn here. But for the sake of the creation-evolution debate, this article demonstrates a few things in particular.

First, it's another good example of the equivocal use of the word “evolution.” Any “change” identified in nature is touted as “evolution in action” which serves to embolden evolutionists. When I say I don't believe in “evolution” (the descent of all species from a common ancestor), I'm chided for denying something they claim has been observed.

Second, this highlights the subjective meaning of the term “species.” Species is typically defined as “a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.”¹ This definition is, at best, ambiguous. At worst, it's useless. The Australian black-tip and the common black-tip can obviously interbreed (as evidenced by this finding). Why are they different species? Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) can hybridize (and have done so in the wild) yet they are different species. The gray wolf (Canis lupus) can hybridize with the coyote (Canis latrans). Hybridization is so common among flora and fauna that I really don't see how this definition of species endures. Evolutionists often demand that creationists provide a rigorous definition of the term “kind.” This is rather hypocritical of them since they cannot present a rigorous definition of the term “species.” Also, evolutionists sometimes define “macro-evolution” as “change that occurs at or above the level of species.”² That term too is rather useless since evolutionists can't seem to pin down what a species is. In other words, how can we know that change has occurred “at or above the level of species” if we don't even know what a species is?

Thirdly, this finding is a better example of the creationist model. Both the common black-tip and Australian black-tip belong to the same “kind.” Each species merely possess different combinations of traits that were already present in the ancestral population. It's obvious that the common ancestor of both species was more robust and could likely tolerate a wider range of temperatures. Natural selection is a process that tends to eliminate traits which aren't suited to a particular environment and the modern species of Australian black-tip have become specialized and adapted to more tropical waters.

I wrote about this very subject in my post “Were there Fish on the Ark?” All the things discussed in this recent article are consistent with the post I had written nearly a year ago. In that post, where I focused on the adaptation of modern fish species to their environments, I also mentioned the Biblical concept of “kind” and the creationist explanation of speciation. It all comes into play in this new finding. I'm even tempted to say, “This is creation in action!”

It's Earth Day Again

Well, another “Earth Day” is upon us. The mindset of liberal environmentalists is something completely alien to me. Maybe I'm just suspicious of their motives. I can never be sure if environmentalists are acting out of genuine concern for the planet or if ordinary liberals are exploiting environmentalist concerns to advance their political agenda. Perhaps the truth is that the liberals don't really know either.

One fundamental tenet of liberal ideology is that there is no personal god. To them, “god” is only a warm fuzzy feeling that one can experience any number of ways. If someone gets that warm fuzzy feeling in church, that's fine but if they can get the same feelings at home then church is optional. This is usually expressed in some ambiguous attitude of tolerance; “I might believe this but if you believe something else that's fine because all beliefs are equal.” There are also those people who get the warm fuzzy feeling about nature. I don't think they consciously “worship” nature (though some do) but rather experience the same satisfaction from their belief about nature that liberal theists experience from their belief in their impersonal god.

I guess they don't realize how jealous their god is. It's not enough that they become one with nature, they want everyone else to treat nature with the same reverence that they do. To many of them, it's blasphemy to want to cut down a tree to build a house or to clear rain forests to make room for cattle. Nature is like some holy relic that must remain undefiled by human hands. To that end, they have no problem forcing their “religious” views on the rest of us. Nothing is too extreme if they do it “to save the planet.”

Do you think I'm going too far? I assure you I'm not. Consider the very recent example of the delta smelt. The San Joaquin Valley is a dust bowl but we will not pump more water there because the Natural Resources Defense Council successfully sued to protect a fish that's less than bite size. This fish is endangered so we don't even eat them but we protect them only for the sake of preserving them to look at.

The liberal elites have gotten in on the act too. President Obama has spoken often about his “green jobs” agenda. Oil and coal are bad but wind and sun are good. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we get oil and coal out of the ground? Wouldn't that make them part of nature too? I guess the problem is that oil and coal are produced by “big” oil and coal companies and anything with a “big” in front of it is bad. They need to be replaced with solar energy produced by some small company that doesn't actually employee anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that folks like Gore and Obama are using the environment as a tool for social engineering. Gore doesn't really give a whit about the planet or else he'd stop traveling in his private jet and limo to give speeches on how everyone else needs to use mass transit. Do you remember also how Obama defended his stimulus package? He said it would help the economy by creating green jobs. It doesn't matter what the policy is, liberals will bolster it by saying it's good for the planet.

On this Earth Day, I would remind people that God made this planet for us; He didn't make us for the planet. He commanded us to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Genesis 1:28). The earth is bountiful and plentiful. God has really blessed us with so many resources and we should feel free to use them. To me, environmentalists are like that slothful servant in Matthew 25:24-30. He was given stewardship over a talent but rather than put the talent to work, he buried it. When his master returned, he told him (I'm paraphrasing here), “Here's your talent, just like you gave it to me.” Environmentalists do the same thing; God gave us the earth to use for His glory and they want to preserve it untouched.

Today is Earth Day

Today is “Earth Day.” According to Wikipedia, “Earth Day… is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment.” That sounds well and good and I’m all for appreciating the Earth’s environment. But there’s a fine line between appreciation and adoration and I fear too many people blur the distinction. As Christians, we must be clear about what our role is in this world. When God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, He gave them a few, simple instructions.

First, we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). We’re different than the animals. When God made Adam, He gave him the task of naming the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). Adam saw that he wasn’t like the beasts or the birds; he was in the image of God. When God made Eve, Adam at last saw someone like himself. Upon seeing Eve he exclaimed, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). But some celebrants of earth day don’t draw the line between humans and animals. In fact, they state the opposite! Read how the Oakland Zoo is celebrating Earth Day:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

So when kids go to the Oakland Zoo on Earth Day, they’re told they’re just another knot in the web of life. Lizard, bird, monkey, and man – it’s all the same.

Another commandment God gave to Adam and Eve is, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28, NASB). He gave this same command to Noah and his family after they left the Ark (Genesis 9:1). Procreation is a blessed event that God encourages within marriage. However, one of the driving motives behind the original celebration of Earth Day was “zero population growth.” US Senator, Gaylord Nelson, an early leader in the Earth Day movement, made the following quote:

"The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become ... We have to address the population issue. The United Kingdom, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'"

We can see that Senator Nelson’s goal was to limit the population growth. In this quote, he suggests limiting immigration as a method. Unfortunately, we sometimes see much more radical methods being employed by nations like China – such as forced abortions. The idea of limiting population is the antithesis of God’s command to fill the earth. He made the earth perfectly capable of supporting a population many times larger than we currently have (read about the overpopulation myth here). We need not adopt the same attitude as the people at Babel.

Still another thing that bothers me about Earth Day is the misguided notion that it’s somehow noble to leave the environment untouched. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe we should be good stewards over the environment; but don’t forget that God said, “Let them [men and women] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). Time and Date.com says, “Earth Day is usually celebrated with outdoor performances, where individuals or groups perform acts of service to earth.” Excuse me? Acts of service to the earth? The earth is here to serve us; we are not here to serve the earth.

Finally, I’m a little uneasy with the whole “nature worship” that seems to go on this day. Romans 1:25 talks about how people, “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” I remind you of the dreadful day of the Lord discussed in 2 Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This earth and everything in it is going to pass away. While we’re here, don’t pollute, act responsibly, and let’s be good stewards over what God has given us. Beyond that, don’t get too caught up with this “Earth Day” craze. I believe it focuses on all the wrong things.

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: and thy glory above all the earth;

Psalm 108:5

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.

In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth

I was online the other day and answered a question about global warming, “Creationism,” and free speech. The person asking the question ended his comments by saying, “All thoughts are welcome.” As always, my reply was pointed yet polite and I addressed each subject with a brief example. I then received an email from that person wherein he called me a lying, self-centered fool. He also implied I was a thief which has me kind of confused. Oh well, I guess he meant to say, “All thoughts are welcome except those that disagree with me.” Please see my last post about people who simply hate Christians. This guy clearly fits that description. He’s one of the bigots I was talking about.

I could post his question or email and dissect them to show how he was wrong but I don’t want to pick on him in particular. His response is typical of people who hate Christians so there’s no need to single him out. Instead, I want to take a moment to address this notion that anyone who believes God created everything is a lying idiot (and I’m putting that politely - what I’ve been called is much worse).

I could address a wide range of topics surrounding the creation issue but for the moment, let me just touch on the issue of the origin of matter. I’ll save evolution for another day.

Presently, there is no consensus among scientists about where matter/energy originally came from. Whenever a Christian suggests that God made it, we’re accused of believing in a “god-of-the-gaps.” That is, anything we can’t explain, we simply attribute it to God. We’re then accused of hating science, being ignorant of the facts, lying, and even abusing our children; I kid you not - I’ve been accused of child abuse because teaching my children God created us is a crime in some people’s eyes!

So, putting the Bible aside for a moment, let’s look logically at how matter could have come into being.

The current consensus among scientists is the Big Bang model of the universe. They believe everything in the universe – matter/energy, space, and time - once existed in a single point known as a singularity. For some unknown reason, the singularity began to expand in an event known as “the Big Bang.” The most obvious question is, “where did the matter come from?” We’ll, they don’t know - but they know God didn’t make it! Hmmm, if you don’t know, then how do you know God didn’t do it? They just know I guess.

There is a law known as the First Law of Thermodynamics or “the conservation of matter/energy.” Most people have heard this expressed as “matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.”

If something exists, there are only 2 possible explanations for its existence: either it was created or it is eternal. That’s it. There are no other options. Also, nothing can create itself so it had to be created by something outside of itself. Can anyone disagree with me so far?

Now if you acknowledge something is created, you’ve not really answered the question. You’ve just moved the creation a little further back in time. Who created that creator? If that creator was also created, then you just keep moving farther and farther back - a logical fallacy known as an “infinite regress.” To keep moving the creation of matter father back to other created creators doesn’t answer anything. There must be an eternal “first cause” or something that was not created. I suggest to you that there is no other option than to believe there is ultimately an eternal Creator who created everything in the first place.

Now, I’ve had staunch atheists who refuse to acknowledge this inescapable conclusion. They have said to me that matter IS eternal. What they don’t seem to realize is that they are merely ascribing divine qualities to matter. In a real sense, they are making matter their god. There is no scientific reason to believe matter is eternal – it’s simply a point of faith. It’s the atheist’s “religion.”

But there is a scientific reason to believe matter is not eternal. There is the Second Law of Thermodynamics or “the law of increasing entropy.” There are a lot of different ways to explain entropy but ultimately it has to do with the transfer of heat/energy. Let me give an illustration:

Suppose there is a completely sealed room. No heat can enter or leave the room. Inside the room are a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice. If left alone, you know what will happen - the coffee will cool and the ice will melt. Eventually, everything in the room will be the same temperature.

The same thing is true about matter/energy. Over time, all the stars will burn out, all motion will stop, and all useful energy will be exhausted and become useless energy (unable to perform work). This is known as the “heat death” and is the unavoidable end of any system. If the universe were indeed infinitely old, the heat death would have already occurred long ago. The fact that it hasn’t already happened is proof the universe is not infinitely old.

Now, the Bible says that God rested on the 7th day of creation (Genesis 2:2) that is, He stopped creating. So the Bible agrees with the 1st law of thermodynamics that no new matter is being created. The Bible also says that “the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6) so it agrees with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For someone to not believe in God he must either believe matter was either created from nothing (a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) or it is eternal (a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

You see then, it’s not Christians who hate science, it’s these “Big Bangers!”